Dissertation

Home , Discourse analysis

Dissertation

A Microethnographic Discourse Analysis of the Conditions of Alienation, Engagement,

Pleasure, and Jouissance from a Three-year Ethnographic Study of Middle School

Language Arts Classrooms

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Robert Craig Heggestad II, M.Ed., B.A.

Graduate Program in Education: Teaching & Learning

The Ohio State University

2018

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. David Bloome, Advisor

Dr. Caroline Clark

Dr. George Newell

Dr. Amy Shuman

Abstract

This theoretical dissertation explores the constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance as they relate to research and theory on and in classroom education, in particular in middle school language arts classrooms. The research questions ask: First, how is the construct of alienation conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of alienation refine the theoretical construct of alienation? Second, how is the construct of engagement conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of engagement refine the theoretical construct of engagement? Third, how is the construct of pleasure conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of pleasure refine the theoretical construct of pleasure? And fourth, how is the construct of jouissance conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of jouissance refine the theoretical construct of jouissance? The research questions are answered through four case studies. The dissertation takes an ethnographic perspective towards research, utilizing qualitative and ethnographic methods of data collection and analysis. Research was conducted on fifty-nine sixth and seventh-grade language arts students and five teachers across three years and four classrooms focusing broadly on student literacy practices. Over the three years of the study, eighty-two participant observations were conducted and over fifty-five hours of class time were video recorded. Data include video recordings, audio recordings, student and teacher interviews, student and teacher artifacts, and participant observation fieldnotes. Data were selected for their ability to refine extant ii

theoretical constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance and were analyzed through microethnographic discourse analysis (cf., Bloome et al., 2008). The theoretical construct of alienation is refined through Lacan (2004/2014; 1991/2007;

1966/2006; 1992) and his idea of surplus jouissance to argue that not all products created in school are alienating, by utilizing the notion of storytelling rights (Shuman, 1986) to discuss ownership claims, and introducing Bakhtin’s (1990) theory of aesthetic subjecthood via authorship to combat alienation. The theoretical construct of engagement is refined by critiquing the dominant definitions of engagement through an application of procedural display (Bloome, Puro, & Theodorou, 1989) to argue that what is often claimed to be engagement is not. The theoretical construct of pleasure is refined by drawing on Freire (1968/1993) and Bakhtin (1990; 1963/1984a) to suggest the pedagogic and emancipatory potential of laughter and pleasure. The theoretical construct of jouissance is introduced into discussions around education and refined by suggesting that jouissance is not an individual state but socially constructed.

iii

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to my family—to my beautiful and amazing wife, Krystal, and my sons Robby, Sawyer, and Eliot—I love you all from the bottom of my heart and cannot express how vital each one of you were to this endeavor. You are the reason I started on this journey and your support, encouragement, and understanding along the way will never be forgotten.

Acknowledgments

I must first thank my dissertation committee for working with me throughout these years and, frankly, putting up with me. Thank you Caroline Clark, George Newell, and Amy Shuman for all your work, patience, advice, and encouragement. I would also like to give a special thanks to my advisor, David Bloome, for his steadfast encouragement, keen insights, and copious editing. I thank The Ohio State University and the Department of Teaching and Learning for their academic and financial support as I worked on this dissertation. I thank the Center for Video and Ethnographic Discourse

Analysis for its role in helping organize and analyze the large amount of video recordings conducted. Finally, I would like to thank Mrs. Green, Mrs. Lewis, and all of the student participants for allowing me to intrude in their classrooms, ask endless questions, and generally be a bother. You were all a privilege to work with and I give you my sincerest gratitude.

Vita

2006………………………………………B.A. English, Wittenberg University

2007-2009………………………………..Marketing Manager/Secondary Analyst

Parkside Lending, LLC, San Francisco, CA

2009-2012……………………………….English Language Arts Teacher,

Cornerstone Christian Academy,

Willoughby, OH

2011………………………………………M.Ed. Curriculum & Instruction, Cleveland

State University

2012-2016………………………………..University Graduate Associate, The Ohio State

University

2013-2016………………………………..Editorial Assistant, Journal of Literacy

Research, The Ohio State University; the

University of Arizona

2014-2017………………………………..Instructor, The Ohio State University

Fields of Study

Major Field: Education, Teaching and Learning

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii

Vita ...... vi

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Transcripts ...... x

List of Figures ...... xii

Chapter 1: Introduction, Background, and Rationale ...... 1

Research Problem ...... 2

Research Questions ...... 2

Overview of Research Design ...... 4

Theoretical Framing ...... 6

Definitions ...... 7

Conclusion ...... 13

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature ...... 17

Alienation ...... 17

Engagement ...... 25

Pleasure ...... 28

Jouissance ...... 30

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 35

Framing of Methodology ...... 36

Overview of Research Design ...... 40

vii

Participants ...... 56

Data Collection ...... 61

Data Analysis ...... 73

Chapter 4: Findings ...... 81

Alienation ...... 82

Engagement ...... 107

Pleasure ...... 118

Jouissance ...... 147

Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 207

Alienation ...... 207

Engagement ...... 212

Pleasure ...... 215

Jouissance ...... 218

Conclusion ...... 222

References ...... 228

Appendix A: Transcript Conventions ...... 240

Appendix B: Will’s Full Interview Transcript ...... 241

Appendix C: Harper’s Interview ...... 259

Appendix D: Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s Chopsticks Interaction ...... 277

Appendix E: Angie, Ravna, and Olivia’s Hallway Interaction ...... 293

Appendix F: Group Interview with Angie, Ravna, and Olivia ...... 314

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Year one observation schedule ...... 42

Table 2: Year two observation schedule ...... 44

Table 3: Year three observation schedule ...... 47

Table 4: Years 1, 2, and 3 Observational Schedule and Data Inventory ...... 48

Table 5: Year 1 Participants in Mrs. Green’s Class ...... 57

Table 6: Year 2 Participants in Mrs. Green’s Class ...... 58

Table 7: Year 2 Participants in Mrs. Lewis’s Class ...... 59

Table 8: Year 3 Participants in Mrs. Lewis’s Class ...... 60

Table 9: Event Mapping Sample ...... 75

Table 10: Observation schedule of Digital Informational Writing Unit ...... 110

Table 11: Graphic Novel Unit Overview and Observation Schedule ...... 149

Table 12: Interactional Units 1-19: Summary and Comments on

Interpretive Proposals ...... 153

List of Transcripts

Transcript 1: Pre-site Audio Recorded Fieldnotes Sample ...... 62

Transcript 2: Fieldnotes Sample ...... 63

Transcript 3: Post-site Audio Recorded Fieldnotes Sample ...... 66

Transcript 4: Microethnographic Discourse Analysis Sample ...... 76

Transcript 5: Will Does Not Like Writing ...... 84

Transcript 6: Writing in Fifth Grade ...... 85

Transcript 7: Will’s The Outsiders Fan Fiction ...... 87

Transcript 8: Will Writes Stories With Too Much Excitement ...... 89

Transcript 9: Will’s Literacy Event Narrative ...... 91

Transcript 10: Will Enjoyed Writing Halloween Story ...... 94

Transcript 11: Video Games and Their Connection to Books ...... 95

Transcript 12: Will’s Advice to Language Arts Teachers ...... 106

Transcript 13: Harper on the Digital Informational Unit ...... 111

Transcript 14: Harper’s “I’m Just Doing Bullets” ...... 114

Transcript 15: Story Cube Narrative Writing ...... 121

Transcript 16: Weird Character Names in Stories ...... 135

Transcript 17: Transgressive Laughter ...... 137

Transcript 18: Story Endings ...... 138

Transcript 19: Charlotte’s Love Story ...... 141

Transcript 20: Cannibalism ...... 145

Transcript 21: Interactional Units 19-24: Chopsticks Discussion and x

Angie’s Revelation ...... 162

Transcript 22: Olivia’s Chopsticks Revelation ...... 183

Transcript 23: Angie’s Chopsticks Theory ...... 186

Transcript 24: Bathroom Suicide Theory ...... 187

Transcript 25: Additional Theories of Glory’s Disappearance ...... 188

Transcript 26: Angie’s Diagnosis of Schizophrenia ...... 189

Transcript 27: Group Revelation About Glory’s Suicide ...... 190

Transcript 28: Ravna’s Note to Angie Transcribed ...... 197

Transcript 29: Angie’s Reply to Ravna Transcribed ...... 198

Transcript 30: Angie and Ravna Question Reality ...... 204

List of Figures

Figure 1: Year 1 Classroom Diagram Mrs. Green ...... 51

Figure 2: Year 1 Classroom “Picture” Mrs. Green ...... 51

Figure 3: Year 2 Classroom Diagram Mrs. Green ...... 53

Figure 4: Year 2 Classroom “Picture” Mrs. Green ...... 53

Figure 5: Year 2 Classroom Diagram Mrs. Lewis ...... 54

Figure 6: Year 2 Classroom “Picture” Mrs. Lewis ...... 54

Figure 7: Year 3 Classroom Diagram Mrs. Lewis ...... 55

Figure 8: Year 3 Classroom “Picture” Mrs. Lewis ...... 55

Figure 9: Student Artifact Sample ...... 79

Figure 10: Mia, Charlotte, and Emma’s Positioning Within the Classroom ...... 119

Figure 11: Mia, Charlotte, and Emma Positioning “Picture” ...... 120

Figure 12: Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s Positioning in Classroom ...... 159

Figure 13: Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s Positioning in Classroom “Picture” . 159

Figure 14: Angie and Ravna’s Imitative Photograph ...... 180

Figure 15: Angie’s Dandelion Headband ...... 181

Figure 16: Ravna’s Graphic Novel Student Work Sample Part 1 ...... 194

Figure 17: Ravna’s Graphic Novel Student Work Sample Part 2 ...... 195

Figure 18: Ravna’s Note to Angie ...... 197

Figure 19: Angie’s Reply to Ravna ...... 198

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction, Background, and Rationale

Over the past few decades substantial research has been conducted on student engagement; however, the term engagement is defined in many different ways such that it makes the construct difficult to use. For example, engagement is used to study, among other topics, time-on-task, the completion of assignments, excitement, boredom, alienation, pleasure, behavior, emotions, and dropouts (cf. Christenson, Reschly, &

Wylie, 2012; Fredricks et al., 2004). Despite using the same term, these topics are conceptually different. As such, the purpose of this dissertation is to begin to refine and expand the following four aspects of the current construct of engagement: alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance.

This dissertation study draws on data gathered from four separate classrooms from a three-year ethnography of middle school literacy practices. The specific aims of this dissertation are to find, describe, analyze, and theoretically refine conditions of intensely felt emotions and affectations including (a) the non-pleasurable and alienating aspects of education; (b) when students are engaged in learning; (c) pleasurable literacy practices; and (d) events of jouissance—that is, events during which participants evidence intellectual excitement and enjoyment. Utilizing a case study approach to selecting conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance during classroom literacy events, I conduct microethnographic discourse analyses of four case studies to describe in detail the social and discursive interactions that make up these conditions. Building on these analyses, this dissertation reconceptualizes the language arts classroom as a potential site for researching the student body and the affective forces at work in reading,

writing, thinking and learning. Moreover, it foregrounds the potential impact student and teachers’ alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance has on their subjectively felt affective states, learning, academic performance, and intellectual growth.

Research Problem

The practical impetus for this dissertation is that some students continue to feel bored, estranged, and alienated in and during school. Student engagement is held as a remedy for these conditions; however, in addition to the many and sometimes conflicting definitions of engagement there are numerous ways to operationalize the construct of engagement in research. Although it is a relatively new topic, student engagement research has dramatically expanded in the past decade. Myriad reasons for this can be attributed, but its rise is largely pragmatic—a result of the assumption that engagement is seen as holding the potential to influence student learning, decrease dropout rates, and improve secondary and postsecondary experiences and outcomes. But despite increased attention to student affect and engagement, students remain disinterested, bored, and alienated throughout large portions of every school day (Belton & Priyadharshini, 2007).

Students may be required to attend school, but, as it turns out, “engagement could not be legislated” (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008, p. 369).

Research Questions

This research aims to find, describe, analyze, and conceptualize moments and events during which students experience the conditions of engagement, pleasure, alienation, and jouissance. These intensely felt moments are fundamental in constructing students’ views of school, learning, and literacy, and as such, critical to educators who

desire to potentially change students’ views of school, learning, and literacy, as well as develop life-long learners, leaders, and students who are intellectually zealous. If student learning is viewed as holding the potential to be influenced, then exploring the engagement, pleasure, alienation, and jouissance students experience in and during school is practically significant. However, as a theoretical dissertation, the goal here is to have a theoretical discussion refining the constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance as they are socially constructed in language arts classrooms.

The research questions that guide this dissertation are as follows:

1. How is the construct of alienation conceptualized and made manifest in the

classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of alienation

refine the theoretical construct of alienation?

2. How is the construct of engagement conceptualized and made manifest in the

classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of engagement

refine the theoretical construct of engagement?

3. How is the construct of pleasure conceptualized and made manifest in the

classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of pleasure refine

the theoretical construct of pleasure?

4. How is the construct of jouissance conceptualized and made manifest in the

classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of jouissance

refine the theoretical construct of jouissance?

Overview of Research Design

A more detailed description of the research design and research methodology is provided in Chapter 3. Here I provide a brief overview. As the research questions heading into the investigation were concerned with describing adolescent literacy practices in a particular setting, I decided to conduct a long-term ethnographic study in a middle school language arts classroom. The first year of the study, I used participant observation, interviews, and the collection of teacher and student artifacts during instructional units focused on composition to research participants and events in Mrs. Green’s sixth-grade language arts class at Memorial Middle School.i During the first year of the study, seventeen two-period block classes were observed, focusing on middle school writing practices, students’ engagement with these practices, and their development of writer identities. Overall, I observed 30 hours and 18 minutes (1,818 min.) of class, created 17 fieldnotes (one fieldnote per observation; see Chapter 3 for what fieldnotes consist of), conducted 22 interviews, and collected 222 artifacts (cf. Table 1 in Chapter 3).

The second year of the study, Mrs. Green moved up to teach seventh-grade language arts. When she decided to move up to Grade 7, she and another seventh-grade language arts teacher, Mrs. Lewis, requested and were permitted to teach their classes together. Both held similar teaching philosophies, instructing styles, and interacted well with each other and their students. Due to this teaching arrangement, the study was modified to observe students in both classes. During year two, in addition to participant observation, taking fieldnotes, conducting interviews, and collecting artifacts, I also began video-recording all of the classes I observed. During this second year, the research

study’s scope was broadened to investigate any and all literacy practices that students seemed engaged in, excited about, or alienated in or from. Across 41 two-period block classes, I followed 25 seventh-grade students, conducted 93 hours and 32 minutes of classroom observations, wrote 41 fieldnotes, recorded 69 videos totaling 34 hours, 57 minutes, and 9 seconds, collected 139 artifacts, and interviewed 29 participants (cf. Table

2 in Chapter 3).

Year three of the study followed the same research protocol as year two, including the video recording of classroom observations and a broader notion of literacy practices.

However, during the summer in between years two and three, Mrs. Green left her teaching position to become a literacy coach for her district, so rather than researching a combined class, I was able to focus on just Mrs. Lewis’s classroom. During year three, I followed 17 seventh-grade students, observed 24 two-period block classes, conducted 50 hours and 10 minutes (3,010 min.) of observational fieldwork, composed 24 fieldnotes, collected 110 artifacts, conducted 4 interviews, and took 35 video recordings totaling 20 hours, 28 minutes and 50 seconds of classroom recordings (cf. Table 3 in Chapter 3).

Data analysis consisted of five steps. First, while taking fieldnotes, I noted events during which alienation, pleasure, engagement, or jouissance seemed to be occurring; second, I created précises of all classroom observations and video recordings; third, upon reviewing these events later, I developed timelines detailing and describing the events in question; fourth, I employed microethnographic discourse analysis to transcribe key moments during these events, focusing on participants’ discourse, levels of excitement, and body language. Analysis of interview data followed a similar trajectory: first I

created précises of the interviews; second, I noted when participants spoke about alienating, pleasurable, or engaging experiences, as well as experiences of jouissance; and third, I conducted microethnographic discourse analysis in my transcription of these moments. Analysis of classroom artifacts, including student writing, was used to triangulate and confirm these conditions.

Theoretical Framing

This research is broadly influenced by theorists concerned with language as a social process (e.g., Bakhtin, 1981; 1963/1984a; 1986; Vološinov, 1929/1986), sociocultural theories of learning (e.g., Vygotsky, 1987), the ethnography of communication (e.g. Gumperz & Hymes, 1972; Gumperz, 1986; Hymes, 1974), narrative theory (e.g. Bauman, 1986; Shuman, 1986), social linguistics (e.g. Duranti, 2009; 1997;

Duranti & Goodwin, 1992), poststructural social theories (e.g. Bourdieu, 1972/1977;

Foucault, 1977; 2000; de Certeau, 1984), affective theory and phenomenology (e.g.

Deleuze & Guattarri, 1972/1983; 1987; Schutz, 1970; Hegel, 1807/1977), and the psycholinguistics of Lacan (2004/2014; 1991/2007; 1966/2006; 1992) and Kristeva

(1984; 1986). Within this philosophical lineage, I am heavily indebted to New Literacy

Studies (Heath, 1983; Street, 1984) and their effort to foreground anthropologically- influenced ethnographies of education and language. Additionally, I rely on Bloome’s theoretical and methodological work on discourse analysis, language and literacy events, the social construction of intertextuality, and microethnographic discourse analysis

(Bloome et. al. 2008; Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993; Bloome et al., 2010).

The work of Barthes (1973/1975; 1975/1994) and Lacan (2004/2014; 1991/2007;

1966/2006; 1992) are of particular import to the theoretical findings and to the dissertation as a whole. Barthes, through Kristeva, theorizes textual pleasure by expanding on Lacan. Building on Barthes and Kristeva, Bloome and Egan-Robertson

(1993) conceptualize intertextuality as socially constructed in classroom settings, bridging high French theory with New Literacy Studies’ emphasis on anthropologically oriented theories of ethnographies of communication and classrooms. In a similar manner, the use of the construct of intertextuality through a microethnographic discourse analysis methodology links the theoretical findings to the methodology, which allows mid-level theorizing (Geertz, 1973; Mitchell, 1984) from case studies. This dissertation also draws on affect theory and phenomenology to help foreground the participant body and to conceptualize how participants experience particular literacy events. In brief, these theories provide a theoretically and methodologically consistent approach to discussing the constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance.

Definitions

Literacy event. I use the term literacy event to refer to any act in which occurs reading and/or writing since any act of reading and writing necessarily occurs within a social event and is inseparable from that social event (Street, 1984). A literacy event may involve different types of texts, including pictures, movies, music, etc. Following Heath

(1983), a literacy event is “any occasion in which a piece of [literacy] is integral to the nature of the participants’ interactions and their interpretive processes” (p. 93).

Literacy event narrative. Drawing on Labov’s (1972) notion of tellability and more recent work done on the “small stories” that people tell throughout the day and their impact on identity formation (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; Bamberg, 2004, 2006;

Shuman, 2006), a literacy event narrative is a story told by participants about past literacy events. For clarity, I distinguish student talk around literacy events (the “occasion”) and writing projects (the teacher designed instructional unit/activity), as well as referring to summaries or descriptions of the students’ stories or projects as embedded stories and/or projects.

Discourse. Following Bloome et al. (2008), I take a social constructionist approach to defining discourse as a verb: “discourse can be viewed as actions that people and institutions take in response to each other; and more specifically, actions done with language and other semiotic systems in order to create, recreate, change, and maintain identities, roles, and social contexts that people live within (and without)” (p. 58-59; italics in original). Rather than viewing discourse as a noun or discourse as a text, discourse as a verb emphasizes the dynamic and socially constructed nature of conversation. That is, in “discoursing things into being….people construct social events, social identities, social structures, social statuses, histories, social practices, social spaces, and ways of moving through time and space” (Bloome et al., 2008, p. 61). To put it another way, discourse as a verb focuses on the event as process of discoursing; this highlights the participants as having agentic roles within language and literacy events.

Text. Following Bloome and Egan-Robertson (1993), I take an emic approach to defining text:

A text is a product of textualizing. People textualize experience and the world in

which they live, making those phenomena part of a language system (broadly

defined). The result of the textualizing experience can be a set of words, signs,

representations, etc. But it might be other forms and products not usually

associated with texts: architecture, rock formations, the stars in the sky, the wind,

the ocean, emotion—these can all be texts, but their being texts depends of what

people do. The stars in the sky are only a text if they have been made so, if they

have been textualized. In brief, text is something done by people to experience

(broadly defined). (p. 311; italics in original).

A text can only be labeled a text after it has been socially constructed as a text. This does not preclude activities like silent reading, for the reader is socially constructing the text in an interaction with at the least, the author. Text can be thought of as living, whereas the written word (e.g. a book) is not a text until it is being textualized in an interactional event.

Intertextuality. The concept of intertextuality—that is, the juxtaposition of texts—was coined by Julia Kristeva (1986) who, building off Bakhtin (1963/1984a) and influenced by her studies under Roland Barthes, defined intertextuality

as an intersection of textual surfaces rather than a point (a fixed meaning), as a

dialogue among several writings….each word (text) is an intersection of word

(texts) where at least one other word (text) can be read.…any text is constructed

as a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of

another. (1986, p. 36-37; italics in original).

For Bakhtin, Barthes, and Kristeva, texts cannot be isolated nor can they be original—the concrete utterance (text) must exist as a material artifact with its own history—in other words, all utterances are texts which have been shaped by historical and cultural influences and which, when used, are “borrowed” words but whose use will have been modified by the very act of placing it into a material context. Bloome and Egan-

Robertson (1993) refine Kristeva and Barthes’ construct by highlighting the social construction of intertextuality. They define intertextuality as a “social construction located in the social interactions that people have with each other…. A juxtaposition must be proposed, interactionally recognized, be acknowledged, and have social significance

(p. 308)”. Analogous to the concept of discourse as a verb, this dissertation views intertexuality, and thus all language use, as a practice of intertexting: texts can only be understood in relation to another text within a material and dialogic interaction. In this sense, I approach intertextuality as acts of intertexting—that is, meaning-making symbolic processes of social construction rooted in the material interactions participants engage in (Bakhtin, 1963/1984a; Bloome & Egan-Robertson, 1993).

Learning. I define learning as the social construction of intertexting one text with another; that is, any and all interactions in which the interlocutor receives a piece of information—or a text—and is then able to juxtapose it with another prior or relevant piece of information is inherently a scaffold-like learning process. This definition is theoretically aligned with Lacanian and Barthesean thought and, via the social construction of intertextuality, methodologically appropriate within an ethnographic

study of literacy. In other words, learning is defined here as the active textualization of a text juxtaposed with another, previous text that is again being textualized.

Condition. The definitions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance

(definitions below) are viewed as conditions. A condition is “a particular state of being or existence; situation with respect to circumstances” (Condition, 2014). Rather than, for example, using the term emotion, condition highlights the contextual components that impact participants’ conditions. That is, rather than an individual state, a condition is inherently impacted by various factors outside her control and manifested in relation to these. This is not to imply, however, that context and circumstances force conditions, but rather, that participants’ states are constantly being negotiated.

Alienation. Alienation is the condition of estrangement, isolation, or separation from oneself, another, or society. While Marxist definitions of alienation are the most commonly used in the social sciences, I also build on Lacan’s (2004/2014; 1991/2007;

1966/2006; 1992) understanding of alienation as inherent to human beings. Thus, when discussing more structural instances of alienation I build on Marx (1961) and Freire

(1968/1993). For example, a Marxist definition of alienation is used to discuss the practice of assessment and its alienating properties, whereas Lacan is used to in relation to the psychological aspect of alienation. In this dissertation, alienation is generally used to refer to the feeling of estrangement students feel at school due to curricular decisions, assessment practices, etc. However, when it is used in the Lacanian sense, I note its distinction. (See Chapter 2 for a more thorough discussion of alienation.)

Engagement. Engagement is often defined by the field as either an interaction with a subject or topic, or the presence of sustained interaction with schooling in general

(cf. Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie, 2012). Although not often mentioned explicitly, engagement is often conceptualized as students having fun while learning. In this dissertation, I use the term engagement to mean, quite simply, that students are occupied with what they are supposed to be doing. For example, if a teacher assigns a worksheet and a student is actively completing said worksheet, she is engaged in her work. The definition in this dissertation is narrower than many other definitions of engagement, which include student behavior, their emotional feelings and states, and their cognitive interactions and strategies (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Here, the condition of engagement is conceptualized as time-on-task. However, at times I use the term to mean engagement as it is conceptualized in the engagement field; when its use is not apparent, I note the distinction. (See Chapter 2 for a more thorough discussion of engagement.)

Pleasure. Pleasure is defined as the condition of enjoyment. That is, any events or interactions that participants find joy, happiness, or excitement in can be considered pleasurable. While it is often considered an individual state or experience, pleasure is not inherent to the individual but is always socially constructed within an interactional event.

Even when an individual is alone, their current condition is a dynamic product of their context and their socially constructed thoughts. This construct of pleasure is informed by

Barthes (1973/1975; 1975/1994), Lacan (2004/2014; 1991/2007; 1966/2006; 1992), and

Žižek (2006; 2002). (See Chapter 2 for a more thorough discussion of pleasure.)

Jouissance. The term jouissance is derived from Lacan’s (2004/2014; 1991/2007;

1966/2006; 1992) reworking of Freud in the 1960s and 1970s; in addition to Lacan, I also build on Barthes’ (1973/1975) work, building on Lacan, in defining jouissance. As defined here jouissance is an extreme enjoyment that appears to suddenly happen without clear antecedents. The most common English translation is bliss or ecstasy, and although the French word has a sexual (but not licentious) connotation, it is also used more generally to signify a moment or event of pure joy. As used here, jouissance is evident in those moments when participants are viscerally and intellectually ecstatic about a text or during textual interactions. (See Chapter 2 for a more thorough discussion of jouissance.)

Conclusion

This dissertation is interested in how the conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance are manifested in the classroom and how these findings refine extant theory. To accomplish this, this dissertation utilizes a case study approach to selecting cases of conditions and then theorizing from the case up. Part of this entails the bounding of literacy events. In this dissertation, I attempt to frame literacy events as the participants themselves frame them. The bounding, or framing, of literacy events is thus theorized from an emic point of view. That is, I am theoretically framing literacy events in the classroom as a materially realized event of, on, or about a written or spoken text that is proposed, acknowledged, and validated as socially significant by participants within interactions (Bakthin, 1981; 1963/1984a; Vološinov, 1973; Bloome & Egan-

Robertson, 1993). This includes separating larger literacy events, that I as the researcher

might consider a single literacy event, into separate events when the participants themselves determine they are different events.

Another aspect of this dissertation concerns the meaning dimensions of literacy events. That is, what does this dissertation mean by meaning? To begin with, meaning is always protean and dynamic; moreover, it is contextually dependent. Every utterance is manifested in its concrete and objective context (situation), and this impacts how this dissertation conceptualizes and indeed places meaning on participants’ interactions and discourse. Thus, I am theorizing the meaning dimensions of literacy events again from an emic point of view. That is, meanings are bounded and framed by what the participants think various propositions, interpretations, and texts mean in situ. However, this is not to assert that participants’ representations of meaning are the same as their experience of meaning. To clarify, in the fourth section of Chapter 4, participants experience the condition of jouissance both with each other and through their interactions with the graphic novel Chopsticks (Anthony & Corral, 2012). In determining the meaning of the graphic novel, Chopsticks, I rely on the participants’ contextual understanding of the book to describe it. In this sense, the construct of the social construction of intertextuality, as proposed by Bloome and Egan-Robertson (1993), is critical, as the validation of intertextual proposals by participants allows for the valid theorizing of meaning as emically constructed. Vološinov (1929/1986) writes:

Any genuine kind of understanding will be active and will constitute the germ of a

response….Any true understanding is dialogic in nature….In essence, meaning

belongs to a word in its position between speakers; that is, meaning is realized

only in the process of active, responsive understanding. Meaning does not reside

in the word or in the soul of the speaker or in the soul of the listener. Meaning is

the effect of interaction between speaker and listener produced via the material of

a particular sound complex. (p. 102-103)

In other words, meaning does not stand outside of the event or the utterance, but is rather constitutive of the very interaction itself.

The affective dimensions of the events are more difficult to theorize, in part because affect is often unconscious. However, this dissertation takes pains to theorize affect as socially constructed in interactions; thus, how interlocutors react to the affective dimensions of those they are conversing with is critical. In other words, through microethnographic discourse analysis I view affect through its impact on the participants.

In events, participants’ affective feelings are socially constructed; this does not mean they are necessarily visible, just as thought is not visible to one’s interlocutors; however, it does mean that some affective responses are open to interlocutors. For example, when a participant is excited, she might jump up and down on her toes, or start sweating, or talking faster or in a higher pitch, etc. The meaning of affect, then, is materially realized in a social interaction and its recognition by participants, consciously or not, is sought for its ability to highlight the affective dimensions of language and literacy practices within classroom settings.

In conclusion, this dissertation takes as a theoretical and methodological necessity the import of the materially realized, socially constructed interactional event and attempts

through microethnographic discourse analysis to document the meanings participants themselves make of utterances, interpretations, and events in situ.

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature

This review of related literature is organized to adhere to the research questions; as such, it discusses alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance in that order. The review will provide a brief overview the topic and its intellectual heritage, discuss current movements and camps, and review pertinent research exemplars to highlight both current understandings in the field and investigate the logics of inquiry undergirding these approaches. Finally, I conclude each section by explaining how I plan on using the terms and placing this work in relation to the theories and approaches being discussed.

Alienation

The construct of alienation, theological in origin and dealing with humans’ separation from God was prevalent in the social sciences throughout the middle decades of the 20th century; the sudden disappearance of the construct of alienation in the 1980s is attributed to the abandonment of the larger Marxist project and the rise of postmodern theories (Yuill, 2011). I divide the construct of alienation into four main branches: the first follows a Marxist approach that looks at various structures of power and documents the alienation of participants; the second is psychological in nature and defines alienation as encompassing a range of emotions and feelings; the third branch, stemming from

Lacan (2004/2014; 1991/2007; 1966/2006; 1992), argues that alienation is an inescapable fact of human life, or more precisely, that alienation is the necessary cost of subjecthood and one’s entrance into the symbolic realm (that is, the use of language); the fourth branch is interactional alienation and has hitherto been underexplored. I discuss these

branches in the sections that follow and conclude by discussing alienation’s manifestation in classroom literacy research.

Marxist alienation. Influenced by Hegel’s master-slave dialectic (cf. Althusser,

1965/1969), Marx bases his theory of alienation on the concept of homo faber (Latin:

“man the maker” or “working man” [sic]). In capitalism, the worker is separated from the products they create and this strips them of their very essence, or life-being. Marx (1961) writes, “the object produced by labor, its product, now stands opposed to it as an alien being, as a power independent of the producer” (p. 95). In addition to being alienated from the objects they produce, Marx argues that capitalist production itself is an alienating practice: “if the product of labor is alienation, production itself must be active alienation—the alienation of activity and the activity of alienation” (1961, p. 98). In other words, one cannot meaningfully create an alienated product. This production engenders additional forms of alienation: (a) self-alienation—that is, when one is not creatively producing what one desires and is instead producing what their boss or the market desire, alienation begins to take a subjective and psychological turn; and (b) Marx argues that capitalism alienates human beings from each other:

A direct consequence of the alienation of man [sic] from the product of his labor,

from his life activity and from his species life is that man is alienated from other

men. When man confronts himself, he also confronts other men. What is true of

man’s relationship to his work, to the product of his work and to himself, is also

true of his relationship to other men, to their labor and to the objects of their labor.

(1961, p. 103; italics in original)

Within the social sciences, Marx’s theory of alienation had a large impact in studies done in the workplace, in particular, related to workers in factories. The assembly line rationale—that one worker does one and the same task the entire shift—is said to further alienate the worker due to not only being separated from the product, but indeed, separated from even the different parts of the product.

The structural impact of capitalism, government, global trade, and the free market economy are additionally researched using a Marxist approach. These bring an underlying tension within the construct of alienation to light: is alienation the imposition of a social condition or a condition socially constructed by participants during an event?

For example, the imposition of slavery in the United States can be labeled as structural alienation—that is, as the imposition of a social condition. But while slavery was

“decided” by the courts, public opinion, the government, previous social structures and histories, etc., all of these were decisions made by humans acting and reacting to each other. In other words, what is often labeled as structural (and by implication is harder to change) is in the end individuals acting and reacting. However, it is heuristically helpful to distinguish between conditions that are viewed as structural (e.g. social classes) and an individual or collective state socially constructed by the participants. Thus, the condition of alienation, here, and condition as used throughout the dissertation, can be both the imposition of a social condition and a socially constructed state of being within interactional events; when necessary I distinguish between the two.

Psychological alienation. The second major branch of research concerns itself with the psychological aspects of alienation. Although it certainly does not deny or

dispute the more structural facets of alienation (e.g., Marxist definitions of alienation), it focuses on how this alienation is subjectively felt and its detrimental effects on persons and societies. In his foundational essay on the subject, Seemen (1959) defines alienation as feelings of powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, social isolation, self- estrangement, and cultural estrangement. Psychological alienation focuses on the participant’s subjective experience of her world. Methodologically, this research often utilizes psychological and cognitive tests to elicit information on the subjective states of the participants.

Lacanian alienation. Within Lacanian theory (2004/2014; 1991/2007;

1966/2006; 1992) alienation not only functions as subjective symptoms of societal forces; additionally, alienation is a universal human phenomenon. According to Lacan

(1966/2006), there are two alienations: the first alienation is associated with the birth of the ego and the child’s separation from the mother (or primary caregiver). In what he terms the mirror stage (6-18 months), Lacan argues that the child, prior to this stage functions as a complete being—a whole in her relation with the mother. Indeed, Lacan calls this the first jouissance (which he labels and often refers to as J1). However, upon the realization that one has a separate identity from the mother, which often comes about through the experience of looking in the mirror and realizing that the individual in the mirror is herself, the child is forever separated (alienated) from this feeling of wholeness.

The self, as it were, splits, and all further attempts to access the first jouissance are doomed to failure. The classic example of this is the search by a heterosexual male to

find the perfect breast—no matter how many or “perfect” the breast(s) he finds, none will replace the mother’s.

The second alienation is when the child enters language. Prior to language, the child knows and experiences things, events, and people intuitively and affectively. Like

Buber’s (1958) example of the baby “meeting” the color red,ii Lacan postulates a knowing that is possible prior to language. Once language enters the scene, however, the gap between the signified and signifier is crossed and cannot be retraced. There is always something that the signifier cannot express regarding the signified. Thus, one’s access to the “real” is thenceforth barred. In discussing this, Homer (2005) writes,

Alienation, in Lacan, is precisely this ‘lack of being’ through which the infant’s

realization (in both senses of the term: forming a distinct concept in the mind and

becoming real) lies in an-other place. In this sense, the subject is not alienated

from something or from itself but rather alienation is constitutive of the subject –

the subject is alienated in its very being. (p. 39)

That is, as the sign cannot mean the real thing, the entrance into language (e.g. using signs to make meaning) necessarily alienates the subject. It is this lack—this barred access to the real—that the subject desires, but it is only in moments of jouissance, during, for example, sexual orgasm, that Lacan believes the subject can touch the real.

Interactional alienation. This type of alienation deals with person-to-person interactions or person-to-group interactions. Egan-Robertson (1997) writes, “Alienation can be defined…as feeling like or being treated like a stranger (an alien) in a situation in which one should not or would not expect to have that feeling and/or be treated that way”

(p. 263). Interactional alienation can be as apparently subtle as a teacher’s sigh before answering a particular student’s question, or, more visible, a teacher playing favorites.

Student-to-student interactional alienation is altogether too commonplace (e.g. bullying), and although the complete eradication of interactional alienation is likely not feasible, the fewer alienating interactions persons are required to deal with, the better, both for the student and the school as a whole. Indeed, much of the research into building and creating excellent classroom cultures could make use of research on interactional alienation.

Educational alienation. Although the problem of student alienation is apparent to most observers, there has yet to be an extensive literature review on the topic, in part due to the dearth of articles directly addressing the issue. Within school, violence and bullying are overt examples of alienation; less apparent but quite physical is the school itself—its often prison-like architecture, the fences used to enclose the school grounds from the surrounding environment, binary “choice” in restrooms, etc., with each student viewed from above as an identity number attached to state and federal purse strings.

Structural alienation also includes state and national mandates, school’s curricular decisions, dress codes, the bell schedule, the separation of disciplines, grade levels, and the assessment of students with grades. Indeed, the practice of assessment lies at the root of educational alienation in that it replaces a product with a value. For Marx, payment, especially in monetary form, was the “alienated essence of man’s [sic] work and existence, this essence dominates him and he worships it” (1978, p. 50). Newmann

(1981) concurs:

Human relationships are alienating when people are treated as objects or

standardized abstract units, as, for example, in the use of Grade-point averages;

when people are manipulated to serve the objectives of others; and when high

mobility and specialization in the society prevent people from developing

affectional and moral bonds to a community. Because such conditions reflect

fragmentation of experience, they are, by definition, alienating. (p. 547)

There exist other types of alienation in education: alienation based on ethnicity, social class, socio-economic status, language use (including accents and dialects), sexuality, (dis)ability, access to certain funds of knowledge, intelligence, cultural norms of beauty, dress, popularity, etc. One of the problems that educators have found in their attempts to reduce alienation is that alienation cannot be traced to a single source. Take, for example, a qualitative study by Kirkland (2008) on young African American men alienated by district decisions regarding what books they had to read. The “easy” solution is to push teachers to ignore these guidelines, but there exist issues with this, among them that teachers rely on those making these decisions for their pay. Moreover, even those making the decisions were themselves influenced by past curricular decisions, the culture’s prevailing literary canon, etc. But in addition to not seeing themselves in the texts they were required to read, the young men were also alienated through their association with rap music and their use of African American language. In turn, and despite their voracious reading of rap lyrics and poetry from artists such as Tupac Shakur, the students in Kirkland’s study were labeled deficient, which in turn will impact the various courses (e.g. tracking) they take, not to mention a reduction in grade point

average, etc., all of which have a cascading effect and impact where and whether students attend college, get jobs, and what salary said jobs provide.

In Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1968/1993), Freire rails against the banking concept of education. In this concept, students’ minds function metaphorically like a banking vault in which the teacher deposits information and knowledge. At the core of this concept is the unequal relationship between the student and teacher, and the students’ pre-supposed ignorance. Freire writes,

The teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized,

and predictable. Or else he [sic] expounds on a topic completely alien to the

existential experience of the students. His task is to “fill” the students with the

contents of his narration—contents which are detached from reality, disconnected

from the totality that engendered them and could give them significance. Words

are emptied of their concreteness and become a hollow, alienated, and alienating

verbosity. The outstanding characteristic of this [banking] education, then, is the

sonority of words, not their transforming power. (p. 52)

Freire points to one of the major issues with education more generally: that students, by and large, do not see the point of what they are being asked to do. The information they learn impacts very little of their day-to-day lives. Indeed, teachers often have a hard time explaining why they are teaching what they are teaching—and this is one of the reasons teachers so hate it when students question why they are doing a particular thing.

Moreover, Freire’s description of hollow words is interesting when we consider it in light of research on procedural display. Bloome, Puro, and Theodorou (1989) found that

students, even in early elementary school, are adept at acting as if they are doing what the teacher expects them to do—e.g. “playing school”. The common language arts complaint

(and student tactic) of students “bullshitting” their way through a paper or assignment further proves Freire’s point (Smagorinksy et al., 2010). Using Freire to think through these ideas, one can see that students might be engaged—that is, they are or appear to be on-task—but in reality, their learning, their words, ring hollow.

To close, the construct of alienation is conceptualized in four branches: the first is

Marxist, the second psychological, the third Lacanian, and the fourth interactional. When necessary, I distinguish between types of alienation.

Engagement

To engage according to the American Heritage Dictionary is “To involve oneself or become occupied;” to engage another, one must “attract and hold [their] attention”

(2009, p. 592). There exist many more definitions of engagement within the education field; this is perhaps due to the multiple academic disciplines contributing to the debate, among them psychologists, educators, and philosophers. Student engagement is often associated with motivational theories, including goal theory (Ford, 1992), self- determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), self-efficacy and social learning theory

(Bandura, 1977), and self-worth motivation theory (Covington, 1984). In their 2004 review of literature on school engagement, Fredricks, Blumenfeld, and Paris (2004) propose three categories of engagement—behavioral, emotional, and cognitive—and⁠ argue that it must be studied as a “multidimensional construct” (p. 60). In their handbook on the subject, Christensen, Reschly, and Wylie (2012) define engagement as:

student’s active participation in academic and co-curriculuar or school related

activities, and commitment to educational goals and learning. Engaged students

find learning meaningful, and are invested in their learning and future. It is a

multidimensional construct that consists of behavioral (including academic),

cognitive, and affective subtypes. Student engagement drives learning; requires

energy and effort; is affected by multiple contextual influences; and can be

achieved for all learners. (p. 816-817)

Christenson, Reschly, and Wylie’s definition does cover many of the factors that appear to be affected by or have an impact on levels of engagement. However, their definition, stemming from educational psychology and motivation theories, has two major flaws.

The first is its focus on the individual learner and her cognitive processes without adequately addressing the dialogical principal inherent in learning events. The second is its deficit-oriented approach that implies either (a) teachers are not engaging their students, or (b) students are not intrinsically motivating themselves to engage in academic learning and extra-curricular activities. While their characterizations of student engagement may indeed allow cross-disciplinary insights, the lack of specific qualitative examples, case studies, and ethnographies highlight validity issues facing theories of student engagement. My overarching critique is that the construct of engagement is too dependent on survey, interview, and time-on-task data. In other words, engagement research is missing thickly described events during which participants experience the condition of engagement.

Literacy engagement. Studies on engagement in the field of literacy have also drawn largely from cognitive psychology’s motivational theories and methods. This research has primarily focused on engagement in reading. While there has been research investigating writing engagement (Clark, Chow-Hoy, Herter, & Moss, 2001; Oldfather &

Dahl, 1994), there remains a dire need for additional studies and explorations of new theoretical and methodological approaches. Similar to student engagement findings in education more generally, literacy scholars have found that choice in assignments and/or topics, home-to-school connections, appropriate challenges, and healthy teacher-student relationships are all substantial factors in reading engagement. Guthrie, Wigfield, and

You (2012) maintain that “engaged readers [are] motivated to read, strategic in their approaches to reading, knowledgeable in their construction of meaning from text, and socially interactive while reading” (p. 601). Guthrie and colleagues (Guthrie &

Alvermann, 1999; Guthrie, Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000; Guthrie & Davis, 2003;

Guthrie et al., 2005; 2011) have contributed much to our understanding of engagement in literacy research; however, methodologically they rely primarily on self-reported survey data drawn from the Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ) survey instrument

(Wigfield, Guthrie, & McGough, 1996; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997), and to a lesser extent, student and teacher interview data.

In sum, as I use the term engagement in this dissertation, it refers to the idea that students are conducting the work they are supposed to be doing (e.g. time-on-task): students are working and exerting effort. When I discuss the engagement as defined by the majority of the engagement field, I note its use.

Pleasure

This section deals with pleasure—that is, the moments when students and teachers feel joy or comfort in, for example, reading a book or writing a story. Within this dissertation, these experiences are noted by their enjoyment, not necessarily the intellectual effort required of the participant. However, before moving on, it should be stated that whether or not an activity in school is intellectually difficult, the pleasure felt by students towards learning events and experiences is not without merit. Wilhelm

(2013), in an editorial, calls for educational researchers to focus on pleasure as students who have pleasurable experiences in school are more likely to expend effort when confronted with challenging work.

Textual pleasure is often associated with popular culture. This association of pleasure to popular culture is why Barthes (1973/1975) argues that pleasure has long been ignored in academia in favor of its elegant sibling, desire:

Pleasure is continually disappointed, reduced, deflated, in favor of strong, noble

values: Truth, Death, Progress, Struggle, Joy, etc. Its victorious rival is Desire: we

are always being told about Desire, never about Pleasure; Desire has an epistemic

dignity, Pleasure does not. (p. 57)

Despite this cold-shouldering of pleasure, Barthes argues that it is central to understanding how people make meaning in their interactions with texts of all types. He integrates his concepts of readerly and writerly texts from S/Z (1970/1990), proposing that texts of pleasure are readerly texts read for amusement—that is, a “text that contents, fills, [and] grants euphoria” (1973/1975, p. 14). We can think of readerly texts

as a steamy romance or a spy thriller: they are read for entertainment and satisfaction.

Barthes ties readerly texts to his concept of doxa, which “is current opinion, meaning repeated as if nothing had happened” (1990, p. 122; italics in original); or in different terms, doxa is popular culture (e.g. Horkheimer & Adorno, 1944/2002; Adorno, 1991), the ideology of the ruling class: Doxa “is an implacable stickiness[…]a kind of unconscious: in short, the essence of ideology” (1973/1975, p. 29).

Within this dissertation, events of pleasure are highly enjoyable but do not necessarily require substantial intellectual effort. However, as mentioned above, this does not mean that inducing pleasure, through, for example, popular culture in the classroom in order to accentuate these feelings in students is inherently problematic. Marsh’s (2000) research on the critical role popular culture plays in the classroom is but one example of this. Dyson (1997) as well delineates the ways in which students use popular culture texts in their stories and artwork. In addition, students who have pleasurable experiences in school are more likely to want to come to school, which in turn, affects their attitude towards school and learning. Lemke (2013) emphasizes this point:

Everything that we do, everything that happens to us, potentially alters our later

choices and actions. Which of those potential learnings actually do significantly

change our future is again very much a function of how we feel about them, how

we evaluate them for their desirability, probability, usuality, importance,

normativity, comprehensibility, and seriousness. (p. 66)

Lemke notes that this proposition is common sense and yet ignored, and he calls literacy researchers to include emotion and affect in their analyses.

Jouissance

The last section of this chapter is on the construct of jouissance. Jouissance references both extreme pleasure or alienation, and indeed, it can mean both at the same time. In my review of related scholarship, I found only three articles that use the concept of jouissance to analyze middle school literacy education (Lewis & Crampton, 2016;

Hagood, 2005; Hughes, Perrier, & Kramer, 2009). I begin this section by discussing

Lacan’s importation of jouissance from Kojève (1969) and Freud (1961) and then move into Barthes’ uptake.

Lacanian jouissance. Jouissance is a “Physical or intellectual pleasure, delight, or ecstasy” (Jouissance, 2017); it is also, in its legal sense, the right to enjoy the fruits of profit. Sheridan, translating Lacan’s Écrits (2001), provides a fuller definition as it relates to Lacan’s use:

There is no adequate translation in English of this word. ‘Enjoyment’ conveys the

sense, contained in jouissance, of enjoyment of rights, of property, etc.

Unfortunately, in modern English, the word has lost the sexual connotations it still

retains in French. (Jouir is slang for ‘to come’.) ‘Pleasure’, on the other hand, is

pre-empted by ‘plaisir’ – and Lacan uses the two terms quite differently.

‘Pleasure’ obeys the law of homeostasis that Freud evokes in ‘Beyond the

Pleasure Principle’, whereby, through discharge, the psyche seeks the lowest

possible level of tension. ‘Jouissance’ transgresses this law and, in that respect, it

is beyond the pleasure principle. (Sheridan, 2001, p. x)

As Sheridan points out, in addition to Lacan’s tendency to use terms differently at different points throughout his career, as well as his obtuse and enigmatic style of writing and speaking, there are French-to-English issues in defining jouissance as well.

Lacan first came upon the idea of jouissance from Kojève’s (1969) work on the jouissance of the master in his master/slave dialectic, and this is why Lacan also figured in so heavily in the section on alienation: the two are linked. In his early years, Lacan uses the term in its legal sense: to hold usufruct rights to property, etc. in reference to the master’s ownership of the slave’s jouissance. Taking an example from Žižek (2006), in the science-fiction movie The Matrix (Silver, Wachowski, & Wachowski, 1999), the masters—in this case the robots that rule the post-nuclear world—literally squeeze the jouissance from their slaves by harvesting human electro-chemical energy. Analogous to

Marx’s concept of the surplus-labor the factory owner receives from the workers, Lacan argues that the master receives the excess pleasure created by the slave, and indeed, he terms it surplus-jouissance (Lacan, 1991/2007).

As Lacan’s thought progresses, however, he begins to define jouissance in a more complex fashion and repeatedly hints that jouissance is the most important psychoanalytic concept to understand if we are to comprehend human behavior. Lacan

(1992) comments:

Jouissance presents itself as buried at the center of a field that has the

characteristics of inaccessibility, obscurity, and opacity; moreover, the field is

surrounded by a barrier which makes access to it difficult for the subject to the

point of inaccessibility, because jouissance appears not purely and simply as the

satisfaction of a need, but as the satisfaction of a drive. (p. 209)

This passage provides a solid overview of Lacan’s own thoughts on jouissance,iii although it should be noted that Lacan defines it differently at different times. For example, he variously defined jouissance a “super-abundant vitality” (1992, p. 237), and as “beginning with a tickle and ending with a blaze of petrol” (2007, p. 72).

Žižek (2008; 2006; 2002) alleges jouissance is central to the work of Lacan. In particular, he argues that jouissance is overlooked in critical and sociological theory.

Similar to Barthes’ notion that if one is to understand textual interactions one has to understand the pleasure participants experience, Žižek believes that one cannot understand human activity without better understanding jouissance. Žižek’s common example of this oversight is how liberal thinkers overestimate that voters will vote in their own best interests; instead, he argues that the jouissance voters experience in their relationships with political parties (read: ideologies) often outweighs logical decision- making (2002). Thus, Žižek holds up jouissance as a potentially rich site for study. He writes, “Lacan focuses on the real of jouissance as something which, although it is far from being simply external to language (it is rather “ex-timate” with regard to it), resists symbolization, remains a foreign kernel within it, appears within it as a rupture, cut, gap, inconsistency or impossibility” (2012, p. 874).

Barthesean jouissance. In addition to Lacan, I rely on Barthes’ work in The

Pleasure of the Text (1973/1975) to understand textual jouissance. In his book, Barthes departs from his structuralist roots and introduces a theory of textual pleasure. According

to Barthes, one cannot understand how people make meaning in their textual interactions unless we take into account the pleasures people experience during literacy events.

Drawing on Lacan and Kristeva, Barthes (1973/1975) argues that there are two categories of textual pleasure: (1) a comforting pleasure “that comes from culture and does not break with it” (p. 14); and (2), jouissance—“the text that imposes a state of loss, the text that discomforts…unsettles the reader’s historical, cultural, psychological assumptions, the consistency of his tastes, values, memories, brings to a crisis his relation with language” (p. 14). Jouissance has a sexual (but not vulgar) connotation, meaning

“enjoyment in the sense of enjoyment of a right, of a pleasure, and, most of all, of sexual climax. ‘Jouissance’…invoke[s] the sense of an ecstatic loss of the subject in a sexual or textual coming—a textasy” (Young, 1981, p. 32). Barthes’ translator, Richard Miller, translates jouissance as bliss, but it has become common practice to leave it untranslated when referring to Lacan’s use of the word, and I take the same approach here.

To complicate matters, Barthes’ at times uses the term pleasure in a general sense, as he does in the title of the book, to reference both comfortable pleasures and jouissance; moreover, he explicitly argues that separating pleasure from jouissance is impossible:

These expressions are ambiguous because French has no word that

simultaneously covers pleasure (contentment) and jouissance (rapture). Therefore,

"pleasure" here (and without our being able to anticipate) sometimes extends to

jouissance, sometimes is opposed to it. But I must accommodate myself to this

ambiguity; for on the one hand I need a general "pleasure" whenever I must refer

to an excess of the text, to what in it exceeds any (social) function and any

(structural) functioning; and on the other hand I need a particular "pleasure," a

simple part of Pleasure as a whole, whenever I need to distinguish euphoria,

fulfillment, comfort (the feeling of repletion when culture penetrates freely), from

shock, disturbance, even loss, which are proper to ecstasy, to jouissance. (Barthes,

1973/1975, p. 19)

According to Barthes, texts of jouissance can only emerge “like a scandal (an irregularity), that it is always the trace of a cut, of an assertion (and not of a flowering)”

(1973/1975, p. 20). Barthes here makes a distinction between the teleological pleasure of a narrative’s climax and resolution and the text of jouissance’s explosion of this presumption: within a text of jouissance, a reader does not gradually approach its ending; instead, “everything is wrought to a transport at one and the same moment” (Barthes,

1973/1975, p. 52); it “explodes and disperses” (Barthes, 1981, p. 135). In other words, unlike the pleasure one gets from popular culture, where a story is designed to pull its reader along, gradually building suspense before its satisfactory ending leaves the reader contented, jouissance does not happen in a linear order—instead, it erupts into the event in an almost unconscious manner, affective and visceral.

Chapter 3: Methodology

In this chapter, I focus on the methodology used in this dissertation. Following

Bloome et al. (2010),

We do not separate methodological issues and procedures from theoretical or

epistemological. Indeed, we use the term methodology to refer to the integration

of theoretical and methodological issues, reserving method for the techniques,

tactics, and strategies of data collection, analysis, and reporting. (p. xvii; italics in

original).

The methodology employed in this dissertation study is designed to answer the following research questions:

• First, how is the construct of alienation conceptualized and made manifest

in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of

alienation refine the theoretical construct of alienation? and;

• Second, how is the construct of engagement conceptualized and made

manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the

condition of engagement refine the theoretical construct of engagement?

and;

• Third, how is the construct of pleasure conceptualized and made manifest

in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of

pleasure refine the theoretical construct of pleasure? and;

• Fourth, how is the construct of jouissance conceptualized and made

manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the

condition of jouissance refine the theoretical construct of jouissance?

This chapter is organized as follows: framing of methodology, overview of research design, research site and context, research participants, data collection, and data analysis.

Framing of Methodology

Under the broad banner of qualitative research, this dissertation draws primarily on the ethnography of communication (Gumperz & Hymes, 1972; Hymes, 1974; Heath &

Street, 2008) and microethnographic discourse analysis (Bloome et al., 2008; Bloome et al., 2010). Ethnographic approaches to literacy research foreground long-term research and intense field participant observation. “The purpose of ethnographic research,” writes

Wolcott (1987), “is to describe and interpret cultural behavior” (p. 42-43). The key principles of ethnography are thick description of events (Geertz, 1973) and the analysis of patterns and meanings (Heath & Street, 2008); methods of ethnographers include taking fieldnotes, participant observation, building rapport, recording audio and/or video, and conducting interviews.

Ethnography and an ethnographic perspective need to be distinguished from each other. An ethnography “involves the framing, conceptualizing, conducting, interpreting, writing, and reporting associated with a broad, in-depth and long-term study of a social or cultural group” (Bloome & Green, 1997, p. 183) whereas an ethnographic perspective

take[s] a more focused approach…to study particular aspects of everyday life and

cultural practices of a social group. Central to an ethnographic perspective is the

use of theories of culture and inquiry practices derived from anthropology or

sociology to guide the research. (Bloome & Green, 1997, p. 183)

This dissertation utilizes an ethnographic perspective approach to researching the conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance in middle school language arts classrooms. All uses of the term ethnography and ethnographic refer to an ethnographic perspective.

Through participant observation I recorded activities and events related to the conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance. I then followed

Spradley’s (1980) heuristic funnel, gradually focusing in on key events and conducted microethographic discourse analysis on the events and supporting artifacts. To do this, I utilized a case study approach to define and limit these data. “Case studies are the detailed presentation of ethnographic data relating to some sequence of events from which the analyst seeks to make some theoretical inference” (Mitchell, 1984, p. 237).

Case studies often use multiple data sources and I take the same approach here, utilizing interview, participant observation, artifact, and video and audio-recorded data. Although traditionally, case studies were simply used to augment theoretical arguments as “apt illustration” (Gluckman, 1961), Mitchell (1984) contends that despite case studies’ inherent sampling issue with respect to quantity of data, analytic induction is valid due to the focus on contextual conditions that statistical analyses cannot detail. He writes:

What the anthropologist using a case study to support an argument does is to

show how general principles deriving from some theoretical orientation manifest

themselves in some given set of particular circumstances. A good case study,

therefore, enables the analyst to establish theoretically valid connections between

events and phenomena which were previously ineluctable. From this point of

view, the search for a “typical” case for analytical exposition is likely to be less

fruitful than the search for a “telling” case in which the particular circumstances

surrounding a case serve to make the previously obscure theoretical relationship

suddenly apparent. (Mitchell, 1984, p. 239)

As this dissertation is oriented toward refining theoretical constructs, I searched for and analyzed telling cases. Selection rationale was based on the case’s ability to demonstrate theoretical findings (Mitchell, 1984). In other words, rather than searching for typically recurrent events, I searched for cases that manifested the conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance in ways that “serve to make the previously obscure theoretical relationship suddenly apparent” (Mitchell, 1984, p. 239).

After selecting cases to analyze, I conducted microethnographic discourse analysis on these data. Microethnographic discourse analysis, as described by Bloome et al. (2005) is grounded in social linguistics and interactional approaches, the ethnography of communication, and New Literacy Studies (cf. Bakhtin, 1963/1984a; 1981; Vološinov,

1973, Bourdieu, 1972/1977; de Certeau, 1980; Gumperz & Hymes, 1972; Hymes, 1974).

The microethnographic discourse analytic approach I take can be said to follow these principles:

1. That people act and react to each other in social events (Bloome et al., 2010); that

is, all actions are inherently socially constructed and as such cannot simply exist

in the mind (Gergen, 1999).

2. That research about literacy practices is necessarily also about language

processes, and language use cannot be divorced from the concrete events in which

it is formed (Bakhtin, 1963/1984a; 1981; Vološinov, 1929/1986). Thus,

conceptions of social practices, ideologies, etc., must be built from the ground

up—that is, a detailed ethnographic approach is methodologically critical as any

description of students, teachers, classroom practices, etc. must be grounded in

thick description (Geertz, 1973).

3. A microethnographic approach highlights the event as unit of analysis—however,

the event cannot simply be prescribed from the researcher and instead must be

emically derived from the participants themselves. In order to accomplish this, the

researcher must take pains to determine and warrant individual message units,

interactional units, and events (Green and Wallat, 1981).

Microethnographic discourse analysis is not a small ethnography, or the idea that an analyst can simply analyze a small piece of information and then make generalizations.

Instead, cases and events are culled from larger ethnographic studies and aims, and in a similar manner to Mitchell’s telling case (1984), closely investigated in order to refine current theory. As Geertz writes, “the essential task of theory building here is not to codify abstract regularities but make thick description possible, not to generalize across cases but to generalize within them” (1973, p. 25-26).

The methodological selections of an ethnographic perspective, a case study approach, and microethnographic discourse analysis is consistent with answering the research questions. As the research questions are concerned with refining the constructs of

alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance, selecting telling cases and conducting microethnographic discourse analysis on them allows for the thick description that Geertz

(1973) argues is necessary to theorize from a case. That is, rather than simply discussing the theoretical constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance. and although this dissertation proposal is certainly theoretically dense, I follow Geertz’s call for mid-level theory, building on the thick description of ethnographic case studies to refine and extend current constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance.

Overview of Research Design

This dissertation study is from a three-year ethnographic study focused on observing and describing adolescent literacy practices. The research took place across the

2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 school years in one sixth-grade and three seventh- grade classrooms. The research site was a middle school located in an affluent suburb twenty minutes from a large Midwestern city. The city is home to approximately 42,000 residents of increasingly varied cultural and socio-economic background. With a per capita income just above $50,000, it is predominantly middle to upper-middle class and racially white; however, within the district, Memorial Middle School is the most diverse.

After three preliminary visits the previous fall, research began on Monday,

January 28th, 2013 in Mrs. Green's sixth-grade language arts classroom. Research focused on observing middle school writing practices, their engagement with these practices, and their writer identities. The site was selected for Mrs. Green's reputation, through the local

National Writing Project site, as an excellent language arts instructor. This selection rationale was necessary as the observation of literacy events in which writing played a

"nontrivial role” (Bloome et al., 2010, p. 5) was methodologically important. In other words, as I was attempting to research engaging literacy events, it was important to find a teacher with whom I would have a good chance observing such events. During the first year of the study, I conducted participant observation and interviews and collected artifacts related to students’ writing. I observed 17 two-period block classes from late

January to mid April, 2013 (cf. Table 1, below).

Table 1

Year 1 Observation Schedule

out: Unit Date Title Time Time Time in: Time Event ID Event Duration Preliminary 1.1.1 Mon 1/14/13 Visit Preliminary 1.1.2 Tue 1/22/13 Visit 1.2.1 Observation 1 Mon 1/28/13 9:45 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 01:45 1.2.2 Observation 2 Wed 1/30/13 8:30 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 03:00 1.2.3 Observation 3 Mon 2/4/13 9:45 A.M. 11:00 A.M. 01:15 1.2.4 Observation 4 Technology Thu 2/7/13 9:37 A.M. 11:40 A.M. 02:03 & 1.2.5 Observation 5 Fri 2/8/13 10:00 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 01:30 Informational 1.2.6 Observation 6 Writing Mon 2/11/13 9:45 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 01:45 1.2.7 Observation 7 Wed 2/13/13 8:25 A.M. 11:45 A.M. 03:20 1.2.8 Observation 8 Wed 2/20/13 9:45 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 01:45 1.2.9 Observation 9 Thu 2/21/13 8:30 A.M. 11:10 A.M. 02:40 1.3.1 Observation 10 Tue 2/26/13 10:00 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 01:30 1.3.2 Observation 11 Grammar Thu 2/28/13 9:45 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 01:45 1.3.3 Observation 12 Unit Thu 2/7/13 9:50 A.M. 11:35 A.M. 01:45 1.3.4 Observation 13 Fri 2/15/13 9:50 A.M. 11:35 A.M. 01:45 1.3.5 Observation 14 Thu 2/21/13 10:00 A.M. 11:40 A.M. 01:40 1.4.1 Observation 15 Connotation Wed 4/10/13 10:00 A.M. 11:35 A.M. 01:35 1.4.2 Observation 16 & Narrative Fri 4/12/13 10:00 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 01:30 1.4.3 Observation 17 Mon 4/15/13 10:00 A.M. 11:30 A.M. 01:30 Jan 28 2013 - 30:18 YR 1 17 April 15 2013 (1,818 Totals Observations (4 Months) min.)

I had planned on researching in Mrs. Green’s sixth-grade class again the following school year, but that summer, she decided to move up and take a position that opened in seventh-grade. During this summer, Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis, another seventh grade language arts teacher at Memorial Middle School, and head of the school’s language arts department, decided to co-teach their classes. Due to this arrangement, the study was modified to research students in both teachers’ classes. In year two, the study adjusted its focus to include all literacy practices; additionally, I began video recording each class period as well as audio-recording various sections of the classroom when group work was taking place. Research was conducted during the second block of school.

The first period of the language arts block being studied began at 10:00 a.m. and ended at

10:45 a.m.; lunch then ran until 11:20 a.m. and the second period of the block ended at

12:05 p.m. In consultation with the teachers, data were collected primarily during instructional units focused on composition. Between these units, class was observed approximately once per week in order to document instructional activities that might influence students' literacy practices. Across the school year, I observed 41 two-period block classes, made 69 video recordings totaling 34 hours, fifty-seven minutes, and nine seconds, conducted 30 interviews, and collected 222 artifacts pertaining to literacy instruction, writing samples, and teacher planning resources (i.e. lesson plans, etc.). Table

2, below, details these observations.

Table 2

Year 2 Observation Schedule

out: Unit Date Title Time Time Time in: Time Event ID Duration Preliminary 2.1.1 Mon 8/19/13 10:05 A.M. 12:30 P.M. Visit Preliminary 2.1.2 Fri 10/6/13 9:10 A.M. 12:35 P.M. Visit Preliminary 2.1.3 Tue 12/17/13 11:10 A.M. 12:40 P.M. Visit Preliminary Wed 2.1.4 10:28 A.M. 12:30 P.M. Visit 12/18/13 2.2.1 Observation 1 Mon 1/13/14 10:07 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:03 2.2.2 Observation 2 Wed 1/15/14 9:56 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:14 2.2.3 Observation 3 Thu 1/16/14 9:46 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:24 2.2.4 Observation 4 Fri 1/17/14 10:04 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:06 2.2.5 Observation 5 Tue 1/21/14 9:58 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:12 2.2.6 Observation 6 Wed 1/22/14 9:44 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:26 2.2.7 Observation 7 Thu 1/23/14 10:11 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 01:59 2.2.8 Observation 8 Fri 1/24/14 9:52 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:18 2.2.9 Observation 9 Digital Mon 1/27/14 10:10 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 Writing 2.2.10 Observation 10 Thu 1/30/14 10:02 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:08 Project 2.2.11 Observation 11 Fri 1/31/14 9:37 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:33 2.2.12 Observation 12 Mon 2/3/14 10:06 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:04 2.2.13 Observation 13 Fri 2/7/14 9:52 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:18 2.2.14 Observation 14 Tue 2/11/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.2.15 Observation 15 Thu 2/20/14 9:28 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:42 2.2.16 Observation 16 Fri 2/21/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.2.17 Observation 17 Mon 2/24/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.2.18 Observation 18 Tue 2/25/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.2.19 Observation 19 Thu 3/13/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 2.3.1 Observation 20 Vocab & Thu 3/20/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 Reading 2.3.2 Observation 21 Skills Thu 3/27/14 9:57 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:13

2.4.1 Observation 22 Historical Tue 4/8/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.4.2 Observation 23 Fiction Thu 4/10/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10

2.4.3 Observation 24 Fri 4/11/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.4.4 Observation 25 Mon 4/14/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.4.5 Observation 26 Thu 5/1/14 9:56 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:14 2.4.6 Observation 27 Fri 5/2/14 10:14 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 01:56 2.4.7 Observation 28 Mon 5/5/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.4.8 Observation 29 Wed 5/7/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.4.9 Observation 30 Fri 5/9/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.4.10 Observation 31 Mon 5/12/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.4.11 Observation 32 Wed 5/14/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.1 Observation 33 Fri 5/16/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.2 Observation 34 Mon 5/19/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.3 Observation 35 Tue 5/20/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.4 Observation 36 Graphic Wed 5/21/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.5 Observation 37 Novels Thu 5/22/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.6 Observation 38 Fri 5/23/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.8 Observation 39 Wed 5/28/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.7 Observation 40 Tue 5/27/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 2.5.9 Observation 41 Thu 5/29/14 10:00 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:10 January 13, 93:32 YR 2 41 2014 – May (5,612 Totals Observations 29, 2014 min) (5 Months)

Year three of the study focused only on Mrs. Lewis’ seventh-grade classroom as

Mrs. Green had been promoted to a literacy coaching position in the district; aside from this change, all research protocols remained the same. Research was conducted during the second block of school. The first period of the language arts block being studied began at

10:00 a.m. and ended at 10:45 a.m.; lunch then ran until 11:20 a.m. and the second period of the block ended at 12:05 p.m. In consultation with the teachers, data were collected primarily during instructional units focused on composition. Between these units, class was observed approximately once per week in order to document instructional activities that might influence students' literacy practices. Across the school year, I observed 24 two-period block classes, recorded 35 videos totaling 20 hours, twenty-eight minutes, and fifty seconds, conducted 6 interviews, and collected 110 literacy artifacts (cf. Table 3, below).

Table 3

Year 3 Observational Schedule

out: Unit Date Title Time Time Time in: Time Event ID Event Duration 3.1.1 Observation 1 Tue 09/30/14 9:45 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:25 3.1.2 Observation 2 Counting by Thu 10/02/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.1.3 Observation 3 7s Mon 10/13/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.1.4 Observation 4 Tue 10/14/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.1.5 Observation 5 Wed 10/15/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.2.1 Observation 6 Tue 10/28/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.2.2 Observation 7 Wed 10/29/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 Skeleton 3.2.3 Observation 8 Tue 11/4/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 Key and 3.2.4 Observation 9 Scary Story Wed 11/5/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.2.5 Observation 10 Narrative Fri 11/7/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.2.6 Observation 11 Unit Tue 11/18/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05

3.2.7 Observation 12 Wed 11/19/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.2.6 Observation 13 Thu 11/20/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.3.1 Observation 14 A Christmas Thu 12/11/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.3.2 Observation 15 Carol Tue 12/16/14 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05

3.4.1 Observation 16 Essay Wed 2/11/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.4.2 Observation 17 Writing Fri 2/13/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05

3.5.1 Observation 18 Digital Thu 3/5/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.5.2 Observation 19 Writing Thu 3/12/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 Project

3.6.1 Observation 20 Fractured Thu 5/7/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.6.2 Observation 21 Fairy Tales Fri 5/8/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 & Graphic 3.6.3 Observation 22 Thu 5/14/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 Novel 3.6.4 Observation 23 Fri 5/15/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05 3.6.5 Observation 24 Wed 5/20/15 10:05 A.M. 12:10 P.M. 02:05

September 30 50:10 YR 3 24 2014 – May 6 Units (3,010 Totals Observations 20 2015 min) (9 Months)

Across all three years, I observed 82 two-period block classes for a total of 174 hours in the field, took 104 video recordings totaling 55 hours, 25 minutes, and 59 seconds, conducted 45 student interviews and 13 teacher interviews, and collected 345 student artifacts and 209 teacher artifacts (cf. Table 4, below).

Table 4

Years 1, 2, and 3 Observational Schedule and Data Inventory

Video Video Audio Audio Student Student Student Teacher Teacher Teacher Artifacts Artifacts Duration Interviews Interviews Recordings Recordings Observations Year 1 17 30:18 N/A 17 5 120 102 Year 2 41 93:32 69 (34:57:09) 24 6 139 83 Year 3 24 50:10 35 (20:28:50) 4 2 86 24

Totals 82 174:00 104 (55:25:59) 45 13 345 209

Research Site and Context

Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis taught at Memorial Middle School located in an affluent suburb twenty minutes from a large Midwestern city in the United States of

America. 2010 census figures state per capita income was $51,177 and that 80.5% of its residents were white, 1.8% Black, and 15.3% of Asian decent (U.S. Dept. of Commerce,

2011). Memorial Middle School was one of four middle schools in one of the top-rated districts in the state. The district as a whole educated 14,500 students from three cities

and two additional nearby counties; its students spoke over 60 languages and there were approximately 1,200 English Language Learners.

Memorial Middle School itself, located near the “historic” downtown area, was comprised of approximately 700 sixth, seventh, and eighth-grade students. The school was a large brick building attached by a walkway to the old high school. Upon entering the school, visitors were sectioned off before being allowed to enter into the school’s front office; after filling out a form, the school scanned visitor drivers’ licenses and handed out visitor tags. The hallways of Memorial were well kept, clean, and freshly painted. Many lockers were covered with drawings, pictures, notes, etc.; almost all available open wall space was used by teachers to hang student work, projects, quotes, etc. School spirit, both in appearance and in observation of students, was high—

Memorial middle school students liked their school and teachers and the school itself had a good academic reputation. Throughout the three years observed, I also noticed a sustained campaign against bullying, with different posters cropping up every few months. A football and track field, baseball field, and two tennis courts were located behind the school.

Year 1 context. I observed seventeen student participants and four teacher participants during the first year of the study in Mrs. Green’s sixth-grade language arts class. The class under observation was a wide rectangle and approximately 500 square feet. It was a corner classroom and had a large set of windows on two sides, providing natural light. There was an ELMO (a type of computerized projector) at the front of the room, with a clock above the board. Individual student desks were grouped together in 3s

and 5s; additionally, there was a library area in the room that supplied some 200 age- appropriate books on two bookshelves, one “comfy” chair, and two colorful and plush rugs. Figure 1 is the classroom diagram created using three dimensional architectural software, Sweet Home 3D (Puybaret, 2005); Figure 2 is a “photograph” from the front left corner of the room by the green chair, generated by the software.iv Figure 2, and the software and approach used, is here highlighted due to the unique ability three dimensional software allows regarding viewing the classroom from different angles and points of view.

Figure 1. Year 1 Classroom Diagram Mrs. Green

Figure 2. Year 1 Classroom “Picture” Mrs. Green

Year 2 context. The setting changed during the second year of the study, as Mrs.

Green was moved into the seventh-grade wing of Memorial Middle School on the second floor and the study was expanded to include Mrs. Lewis’s class as well. The co-teaching arrangement was complicated as the two did not share a room, and instead had classrooms directly across the hallway from each other. Mrs. Green and Lewis’s classes often started the first of their two periods in their separate rooms; within five to ten minutes they then convened in a single room and class activities started. Depending on the lesson plan, students would then either stay in that single room, or, more often than not, once group work started, students could be found clustered together between both rooms and spread throughout the hallway. As to their dynamic together in the classroom, when the classes were joined, one of them usually took the lead and the other would circle the classroom, adding in comments when and where appropriate. This leadership role was assumed by both teachers evenly. One additional point to note: the two low circular tables in Figure 4 were designed to be used by sitting on the floor around the table; I observed the repeated use of this table by both students and Mrs. Green, who used it often to conference with students. Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6 detail Mrs. Green and Mrs.

Lewis’s classrooms during year two.

Figure 3. Year 2 Classroom Diagram Mrs. Green

Figure 4. Year 2 Classroom “Picture” Mrs. Green

Figure 5. Year 2 Classroom Diagram Mrs. Lewis

Figure 6. Year 2 Classroom “Picture” Mrs. Lewis

Year 3 context. During year 3 of the study, Mrs. Lewis continued teaching in the same wing, but her classroom was moved down to the first floor and seating arrangements changed slightly.

Figure 7. Year 3 Classroom Diagram Mrs. Lewis

Figure 8. Year 3 Classroom “Picture” Mrs. Lewis

Participants

Mrs. Green, whom I followed in years one and two of the study, was in her mid- thirties; she was white and female. She had an excellent reputation across the district and was involved in area’s local National Writing Project site, even leading one of the classes one summer. Ms. Applebee, who filled in for Mrs. Green the last month of the first year as a long-term sub when Mrs. Green had her first baby, was still in graduate school and a

“rookie” teacher. Ms. Applebee, in her mid-twenties, was white and female. During the first year of the study, Mrs. Morgan was in Mrs. Green’s room as an intervention specialist; Mrs. Morgan, in her forties, was a white female. Mrs. Lewis, whom I observed in the second and third years of the study, was also in her mid-thirties and white and female; she was an accomplished teacher and head of the language arts department at

Memorial Middle School.

During year one I observed 18 student participants; during year two, I observed

35 student participants; and during year three I observed 16 student participants. Across all three years I observed 67 student participants and four teacher participants. Tables 5,

6, 7, and 8 detail participant information. Please note as a limitation that I did not gather information about student race; future studies will need to attend to race and its impact on the constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance.

Table 5

Year 1 Participants in Mrs. Green’s Class

Pseudonym Gender

1 Harper Female 2 Gigi Female 3 Ava Female 4 Zoe Female 5 Lily Female 6 Connor Male 7 Jackson Male 8 Kamille Female 9 Olivia Female 10 Owen Male 11 Kate Female 12 Katie Female 13 Jacob Male 14 Alex Male 15 Sophia Female 16 Michelle Female 17 Jane Female 18 Peter Male

Table 6

Year 2 Participants in Mrs. Green’s Class

Pseudonym Gender 1 Nancy Female 2 James Male 3 Nate Male 4 Angie Female 5 Isabella Female 6 David Male 7 Mickey Female 8 Katie Female 9 Arjun Male 10 Sammy Male 11 George Male 12 Nylah Female 13 Conner Male 14 Susanne Female 15 Donovan Male 16 Kate Female 17 Abdul Male

Table 7

Year 2 Participants in Mrs. Lewis’s Class

Pseudonym Gender 1 Amelia Female 2 Olivia Female 3 Tom Male 4 Harvey Male 5 Bill Male 6 Roberto Male 7 Molly Female 8 Aisha Female

Table 8

Year 3 Participants in Mrs. Lewis’s Class

Pseudonym Gender 1 Terence Male 2 Mary Female 3 Sena Female 4 Savannah Female 5 Charlotte Female 6 Harry Male 7 John Male 8 Ricardo Male 9 Penny Female 10 Mia Female 11 Emma Female 12 Sam Male 13 Catherine Female 14 Willard Male 15 Sajal Female 16 Michael Male

Data Collection

Data collection procedures were appropriated from qualitative, ethnographic, and microethnographic discourse analytic methodologies. They included participant observation, the taking of fieldnotes, pre and post-site audio notes, video and audio recordings, semi-structured interviews, and the collection of classroom artifacts pertaining to literacy instruction.

Participant observation. I conducted participant observation of all class periods observed. By participant observation (cf. Spradley, 1980), I mean that while I observed, often from the side or back of the class, taking fieldnotes, etc., I also participated in and during the class when appropriate. For example, in year three of the study, students were writing stories on district-supplied laptops; I was asked by Mrs. Lewis to help read and edit them at the time. In this instance, I opened up my own laptop and once the students shared their current drafts with me via Google Drive, I immediately began reading and commenting on their writing. More generally, throughout the three years of the study, during appropriate times (e.g. non-lecture activities), I would circulate throughout the classroom, answering questions if they came up, viewing students’ work, giving advice, and asking questions related to the topic at hand. In many ways, my participation was akin to a secondary or support teacher, with students coming up to me with questions if their teacher was currently working with other students, etc. While I was privy to Mrs.

Green and Lewis’s lesson planning, I did not attempt to influence their planning nor did I take an active role in it. In years two and three, I was also required to attend to the video cameras around the rooms, and this, at times, curtailed my participation. Additionally,

while I often gave advice and tried to answer questions, I did not assess students and, upon questions or topics that I either did not have an answer to or that I felt would infringe upon the teachers’ roles, I referred students to their teacher.

Fieldnotes were composed of four separate sections: First, on my drive to

Memorial Middle School, I would audio-record pre-site notes that were later transcribed and added to the notes taken during the period. These audio-recordings consisted of various methodological issues (e.g. where I should place the camera, or what students I might focus on that day), to reviewing the unit the students were in, remembering actions that occurred during the previous days, etc. An excerpted example is below.

Transcript 1

Pre-site Audio-Recorded Fieldnotes Sample

“It’s the 10th of April and I’m on way to Ms. Applebee’s [Mrs. Green’s long-term

substitute] classroom. I haven’t been here in a couple of weeks. It was their spring

break two weeks ago and last week I wasn’t able to make it. I do need an update

and kinda talk about what’s going on. So I’ve really started to get into these data

and even writing up of the data, in part for a number of classes, but also because I

think it’s important I do this. Now one of the things I’ve done is really try to

figure out some theory stuff [but] I’m not sure where I’m going with it….but

yeah, that’s about all I have right now.”

Second, in-class fieldnotes involved describing what was happening in the class

(e.g. Mrs. Green read pages 32-40 to the class). I would jot down any action, event, or

participant that caught my attention. As I was interested in events of engagement, jouissance, alienation, and pleasure, I took care to note these when and where I observed them. Fieldnotes include the time said actions occurred and additionally they include the day’s weather. Within these fieldnotes, I noted methodological and theoretical issues by placing an M or TH next to the corresponding note or writing out methodological or theoretical; additionally, I note specific statements by referencing participants’ pseudonyms.

Transcript 2

Fieldnotes Sample

Time Type Notes Friday, April 10th, 2014 10:00 Weather: Cloudy, rainy misting (very San Francisco like). Dropping down into the 40s today. 10:05 Class comes in. AB speaks with DD about my interview with her. Michelle is handing out Gobstoppers to a number of people On whiteboard easel and being read by AB: 1. Read article, 2. Begin graph activity, 3. Friday focus pop quiz. AB: “See what you’ve learned this week” – we’re going to do it every week. It appears AB just started this. 4. Finish Storyboard & Begin writing one page connotative and denotative story” RH Methodological note: my rough draft fieldnotes do not clearly mark what exactly was being said out loud and what was being written. RH Methodological note: I would like to finish my interviews at the beginning of class so I can observe the writing activity at the end. According to AB, Friday Focus should take approximately 10 minutes. 10:15 Students starting working on graphing worksheet/activity 10:19 Kids starting to take their Friday Focus quiz RH I wonder if my comments about writing and having kids apply what they’re learning is affecting AB’s lesson plans – it’s possible and something I need to go back and look at/discuss. I don’t imagine it is bad, per say, but still need to consider. RH Methodological: Future research: It would be interesting to see if teacher sarcasm produces respect (or social currency) for teachers.

RH Methodological: Future research: Need videotape data and longitudinal observations and artifact collections. This will allow me to try to trace the intervening events and scaffolding events and memory-related events in terms of how writing events affect each other. 10:30 Most kids finishing up their Friday quiz OWEN Pointing something out to Ms. Applebee – can’t tell if it’s the Friday focus or not: “Why does this / matter? AB “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that before. Good job Owen” RH AB admits mistake and congratulates students! 10:55 Back in the classroom from Jane’s interview. Sophia did not want to conduct an interview. Most students have seemed to start working on their stories. WILL Will approaches AB and asks, “Can it go over one page?” AB “Yes” The kids are sharing their ideas to each other. The classroom is quite loud. JACOB “Can it be more than one page?” AB “Yes” JACOB “Yesssss” Jacob asked this question no more than a few minutes after Will did.

The students are all laughing and talking to each other about their stories. 11:15 Just now sitting back down. I had walked around for the past 15 minutes or so asking kids about their stories. I caused quite a stir, but the kids loved sharing their ideas with me. The boys kept walking up to me, wherever I was in the room, and handing me their papers and telling me about their stories. The boys keep talking about what type of car Sam drives. AB Directed toward me: “This might be the first time you’ve seen them be creative.” RH AB said this to me, but reflecting back on it, I remember how “fulfilled” or excited she was that the students were both totally engaged and doing what she wanted them to do. She said this statement not in response to Mrs. Green, but in relation to her own teaching – of this I have no doubt. This comment is interesting, however, in light of her previous comment about being the “buzz kill teacher.” RH The social interactions are very fun to watch right now. The more social students are talking; the quieter students are writing; but they are all composing.

The third aspect of my fieldnote methodology was to fill out a pre-printed log of classroom observation. This log was adapted from Newell (2014), and asked the following questions:

• Briefly describe the lesson (apparent purpose, unique features, texts/genres

being studied) and its apparent continuity with previous and succeeding

lessons.

• Focus of instruction (literature, reading skills, composition, language,

vocabulary, grammar, research, assessment, test prep, or other).

• Describe student literacy practices. Answer who is writing/reading, when,

with whom, to whom, how much time is spent writing/reading, what tools

are being used, and what genres are being written/read.

• Describe key events.

• Describe key students.

• Indicate percentage of time regarding activities observed (non-

instructional time, lecture, small groups, writing, silent reading, note-

taking, oral reading, teacher-led discussion of content, teacher-led

discussion of student reactions and concerns, student presentation, teacher

use of audiovisual equipment and type of equipment, and other).

The fourth aspect of fieldnotes were post-site audio notes that I again took in my car on my drive back from the research site. These audio notes discussed what happened that day, methodological concerns, etc., and they were then transcribed and added to the

fieldnotes when I input said notes into an electronic document. Below I provide an excerpted example of the post-site audio recording.

Transcript 3

Post-site Audio-Recorded Fieldnotes Sample

“The entire class period today was an absolute joy to watch. The students

were working on a connotation and denotation narrative and instead of the

classroom being silent, the workshop-like setting that Mrs. Green instituted

throughout the year and allowed by Ms. Applebee allowed the students to open up

and socially construct their narratives.

DD [another sixth-grade language arts teacher] had been discussing how to

structure a writing assignment, which would wrap up a short unit on connotation

and denotation. They made up the beginning of a story and then set the students

loose on it. It was heavily scaffolded, perhaps too much for my own taste, but the

kids took what little creative choice they were given and just ran with it.

It was so neat watching these social interactions—just the buzz, the energy

that was being given off was really neat from an ex-teacher’s point of view. The

energy and engagement in the class was unmistakable in its beauty and in its power.

Kids were talking and giggling and laughing, but they were talking about their

stories, talking about what they were going to name this character and make such

and such character do. They were talking and walking about, sharing their ideas and

how their story was going to be different from the others.

In that respect, I guess the scaffolding worked—the two teachers were trying

to deal specifically with connotation and denotation and it appears this assessment may have proven up to the task. To me, the integration was a little strange—it seemed like an odd match, I guess, but nonetheless, the kids were just excited as could be.

At one point, I wanted to see what the kids were doing, so I walked around to look at their stories. I did this also because Ms. Applebee was working with a few of the IEP [Individualized Educational Plan] students and I was attempting to be helpful. However, I caused complete havoc in the classroom as everyone wanted to share their stories with me. Everyone was excited and they kept coming up to me, especially the boys—kept coming up and saying, “Mr. Heggestad, look at this—

Mr. Heggestad, look at mine!”

Moreover, at one point, two of the boys, within the course of not more than a few minutes, asked Ms. Applebee if they were allowed to write more than one page. And these two boys were on the trouble-making side in the classroom, especially Jacob, who has been causing a bit of trouble since Mrs. Green left—he keeps challenging Ms. Applebee’s authority—after he asked if he could write more than one page and he received a “yes” from Ms. Applebee, said, “Yessssss” with a long drawn out s sound. I cannot remember if he pumped his fist or not, but he was so excited that he could write more than one page.

If I didn’t say it yet, these kids were just excited. I cannot stress that enough.

On the way out of the classroom, the boys were talking about adventures and making things as funny as possible. The girls were talking and writing about One

Direction and including those band members as characters in their stories. The silent boys were just busy. There seemed to be very much a specialization between people who work well by themselves—those kids seemed to work in relative silence, even amid the uproar of the classroom. Meanwhile, the students who tended to be more social were talking and sharing and providing advice, etc. There was one girl who was excited about drawing and she was working very hard on her storyboard, using it almost like a graphic novel draft. Overall, I would say that the social interactions around the tables functioned very much like a brainstorming session/meeting and less a teacher-directed peer brainstorming or review session.

Long story short, it was just fun watching it—it makes me remember why I came into this field….

Ms. Applebee said something interesting today. However, I have to preface her thoughts with the fact that she and I were discussing a few of the transcripts of the students’ writing project narratives [from my interviews with the students], so it’s possible I somehow lead her into the thought. In any event, she said, “These stories are neat, but it’s kinda sad.” And what she meant was that the students have fewer and fewer opportunities to be creative. Ms. Applebee attributed this to the standards, which in and of itself is interesting. Moreover, and I don’t have the time or experience to pursue this now, but I wonder if a comparison of private school and public schools’ implementation of standards into curriculum might be an interesting research topic.

Switching gears, I had an interview with Jane today and it went well. Granted,

I don’t know if I’m going to use these data—she has an “extreme” [emic term used

by teachers] IEP, along with some health issues. However, I have to really reflect

on the ethics of including her. Am I exploiting her and her privacy? Or am I

labeling her as different if I don’t include her? It was interesting that before my

interview with Jane, Ms. Applebee was very nervous about me interviewing her.

She asked if I would like one of the support teachers to come and join in the

interview, presumably to help Jane answer questions. I declined the offer, as in my

opinion, treating her differently, at least in terms of conducting an interview (which

the large majority of the class did with me), seemed to me unfair and would have

publically signaled to the class and to her that I viewed her as different and/or

incapable of answering interview questions.

But at the same time, when she started the interview she was very nervous.

I made a point to ask her repeatedly—perhaps three times—if she wanted to do

the interview, and told her that if she did not want to do the interview, she didn’t

have to. Long story short, if I do eventually decide to use her in a publication, I

think I will have to go over the actual audio interview with DB and get his advice

on how/if to proceed.”

Video and audio-recording protocol. During years two and three of the study, I used video and audio-recording devices to record classes and interactions. Upon entering the classroom, I would set up a tripod and start video recording. I would then hand the teacher(s) a pocket-sized audio recorder attached to a lanyard that they would place

around their necks. I generally positioned the camera in the back of the room and to one side or another to gain the best vantage point. During year two, when I was researching both Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis, I used two video cameras. When they were teaching in their separate rooms, I had cameras running in both classrooms simultaneously.

Unfortunately, I was able to only be located in one classroom at a time and as I was the sole researcher, there were times I was recording video and audio in a room I was not present in. During these instances, I would run back and forth between the two classrooms every five to ten minutes to check and make sure the cameras were still working and to observe the class. During instances when the classes came together, which was approximately fifty percent of the time, I would use two video cameras at the same time. Although these were again placed in different locations depending on the expected activities, I would usually leave one camera in the front of the classroom and up on an audio-visual shelf to record the faces and voices of the students. I would place the second camera on a tripod at the back of the room, stand behind it, and rotate it to view speakers, activities, etc. I also often placed audio recording devices at each table in the classroom so as to pick up group talk and quieter utterances.

During group work, in addition to circulating and taking fieldnotes, I would often bring a video camera with me and record participants on the move. Finally, as Mrs. Green and Lewis’s classes were often run in a workshop style with students in both classrooms and in the hallways, I used this moving method to record participants in their various settings. Due to IRB constraints, I cannot provide exemplars of the recordings here.

Interview protocol. Interview protocols were derived from sociolinguistic, ethnographic, and qualitative methodologies (cf. Labov, 1972; Spradley, 1979). The interviews were semi-structured—that is, while there was a list of interview questions, I would often change course during the interview in order to encourage participant involvement (e.g. discussing topics they seemed interested in). I would routinely start with basic questions (e.g. “What is your favorite thing to do?”) and the move into questions about the research topic. This was done to mitigate the inherent tension produced by the interviewer’s power in the interaction and alleviate any nervousness interviewees felt. Modan and Shuman (2011) write:

Whereas researchers often consider sociolinguistic interviews inferior to

spontaneous situated interaction…we show that the interactional relationships

inherent in sociolinguistic interviews, as well as the opportunities that such

interviews afford for critical insight into issues or topics that may be taboo, taken

for granted, or otherwise silenced in everyday discourse in an informant’s

community. In other words, interviews afford tellability that may be otherwise

restricted (Shuman, 1986). (p. 14)

The interviews themselves, usually around 15-20 minutes, were designed to gather background data (e.g. favorite subject) on participants, ask questions about specific events in the classroom, and gather information about participants reading and writing practices. To better illustrate a typical interview, please see Appendices B, C, or E for a full transcript of sample interviews. The interview questions I asked students were:

1. Name/Age

2. School attended before this

3. Language arts teacher last year

4. Favorite activity to do (basketball, draw, etc.)

5. Favorite food to eat/music to listen to

6. Favorite school subject

7. Best school subject

8. Was that your best last year, too?

9. Did you write a lot last year in your classes?

10. What do you think, in your own words, writing is?

11. When do you write?

12. What kinds of writing do you do outside of school?

13. Where do you write?

14. To whom are you writing? With whom?

15. Do you use a pen or pencil to write/computer/journal/text messaging?

16. Throughout the day, what do you write? (notes, short story, research paper, etc.)

17. Do you ever write things down in order to make them clearer in your head?

18. Do you like writing? What kinds of writing do you like/don’t you like?

19. Looking back on all the writing you have done, what was your favorite writing project?

20. Why did that one mean so much to you?

21. If you could say one thing to all of the Language arts/English teachers in the world about a better way to teach writing, what would your advice be?

22. In your opinion, what is the most important thing to learn in order to become a good writer?

23. How do you see yourself as a writer?

24. How would you compare yourself to the students in your grade?

25. In class this year, how does your teacher teach you how to write?

26. What is one thing that your teacher does that really helps you write?

27. What writing assignments have you done this year?

28. Does your teacher use rubrics to grade your writing?

29. Do you start with brainstorming and a rough draft and move from there?

30. Regarding this current project, can you explain it to me?

31. What are you going to be required to eventually write?

32. Can you describe the writing assignment you wrote for ______?

33. Did you like writing it?

34. How could the assignment have been better?

35. How did you go about writing it? Did you make an outline or just write?

36. Do you remember what grade you got on it?

37. How do you think you did on this assignment?

38. What makes it good? Not-so-good?

39. Looking back over the past few years, how much do you think you’ve improved as a writer? How?

40. If you had to give advice to a new incoming student about writing in class, what would you tell them?

Data Analysis

Data analysis consisted of four steps. First, while taking observational fieldnotes,

I noted conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, or jouissance; second, I created précises of all classroom observations and video recordings; third, upon reviewing these

events later, I created timelines detailing and describing the events in question; and fourth, I employed microethnographic discourse analysis to transcribe key moments during these events in which students and/or teachers appeared to be viscerally engaged, alienated, or experiencing pleasure or jouissance, focusing on participants’ discourse, levels of excitement, and body language. Analysis of interview data followed a similar trajectory: first I created précises of the interviews; second, I noted when participants spoke about intensely felt experiences; and third, I conducted microethnographic discourse analysis in my transcription of these moments. Analysis of classroom artifacts, including student writing, were used to triangulate and confirm these interpretations.

For example, in the second year of the study I noted the condition of jouissance in my fieldnotes during Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s discussion about Chopsticks

(Anthony & Corral, 2012) by writing “This is it!” After uploading the video recordings to the qualitative software program Transana (Woods & Fassnacht, 2018) and syncing Mrs.

Green’s audio file to the video recording, I created a précise within Transana (e.g. a quick overview of the events that happened). I then created a more thorough mapping of events in and around their interaction (cf. Table 9, below).

Table 9

Event Mapping Sample

Date Overview of Lesson Wednesday Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis explain the graphic novel unit and give a 05/07/14 short presentation on the two books they are collectively reading: Bad Island and Page by Paige. Student who chose Bad Island followed Mrs. Green into her room to begin reading; students reading Page by Paige stayed in Mrs. Lewis’s room. After lunch, both classes stay in Mrs. Lewis’s room and sample graphic novels. Angie converses with Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis about the graphic novel Chopsticks. Thursday Field trip to local library to pick out graphic novels; students packed 05/08/14 lunch and ate outside the library. I was not able to observe this day. Friday Independent reading of individual graphic novels; collective reading of 05/09/14 Page by Paige and Bad Island. Monday Students read their independent graphic novels and complete a writing 05/12/14 assignment about them; they additionally participate in graphic novel literature circles. Wednesday Students work in their literature circle groups, writing and drawing a 05/14/14 group graphic novel of a short story they all read. Monday Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis explain the graphic novel assignment that the 05/19/14 students are going to be writing; students brainstorm and read their respective collective graphic novels. Tuesday Independent reading and/or working on graphic novels; Mrs. Green and 05/20/14 Mrs. Lewis conduct writing conferences. Thursday Collective reading of graphic novels and workshop time to write graphic 05/22/14 novels. Friday Workshop time to write graphic novels. Students are grouped with their 05/23/14 literature circle and spend the class writing and drawing with colored pencils. Tuesday Workshop time to write graphic novels. Students are grouped with their 05/27/14 literature circle and spend the class writing and drawing with colored pencils. Wednesday Students share and present their graphic novels. Unit ends. 05/28/14

After this broader phase of data analysis, I then transcribed key events and began microethnographic discourse analysis, paying close attention to body language, discourse markers, and contextual keys that marked the events as evidencing alienation,

engagement, pleasure, or jouissance. For example, below is an excerpt evidencing the condition of jouissance from Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s conversation that they held on Wednesday, May 7th, 2014. (cf. Appendix A for transcription conventions; I.U. stands for interactional units.)

Transcript 4

Microethnographic Discourse Analysis Sample

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 24 476 ((Emergency alert system begins announcement. The school was close to the town’s speaker and windows were open; it was very loud.)) 477 Angie: but maybe 478 I mean 479 maybe cuz she's been admitted 480 maybe cuz she's been crazy through this whole thing ((Angie gestures to her head and face referencing a mental illness.)) 481 and maybe what happens is [her] 482 Mrs. Green: (.hhhhh) 483 Angie: maybe it's just 484 her xxxxxxx 485 Mrs. Green: >maybe he's not real at all↑< 486 Angie: yeah

This excerpt begins with the translator’s note that the emergency alert system began its announcement. The alert was very loud and could be heard clearly by all interlocutors, including the other students in the room. In the videotape, students heads turned toward the windows as the alert began. At the same time, Angie began interactional unit 24 with “but maybe” (line 477). First, it should be noted that neither

Mrs. Green, Mrs. Lewis, nor Angie turned to the windows; this supports the assertion that the three interlocutors were intensely focused on their conversation. This can be further

warranted through the fact that their conversation (cf. Appendix D for full transcript) continued on as if there were no sirens. This type of complete absorption is referenced by

Barthes (1973/1975) as being an indicator of jouissance (cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

Angie’s use of the conjunction “but” (line 477) is a common interactional transition cue. In their conversation, Mrs. Lewis, Mrs. Green, and Angie all used it to signal a new interpretation or proposal regarding the ending to the graphic novel

Chopsticks. Prior to this, on lines 429 and 435, Angie twice tried to gain the floor but was shut down. On line 429, Angie, speaking while Mrs. Green was also talking, said “maybe she’s been-“ (line 429; cf. Appendix D) before being cut off by Mrs. Lewis. On line 435, she again tried the same line, “maybe she’s been-” (line 435), again getting cut off (by

Mrs. Green). Angie’s line then, “but maybe” was a similar attempt to gain the floor. In this case, because she does gain the floor, evidenced by Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis’s silence, interactional unit 24 began.

Lines 478-480 are key to Angie’s interpretive proposal in her claim that the protagonist, Glory, was “crazy” (line 480) throughout the book and imagined her relationship with her boyfriend, Frank, about whom the story revolves around. As she was saying line 480, Angie gestured to her head and face to signal that Glory had a mental illness of some sort. This interpretation, if acknowledged, recognized, and assumed to have social significance, would change what Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis had previously believed about the graphic novel. Thus, Mrs. Green’s loud and stylized gasp indicates that she understands what Angie is trying to propose (that Frank is not real and

Glory imagined him); moreover, it connotes surprise and excitement with Angie’s proposal.

Angie then continues, “maybe it’s just | her xxxxxxx” (lines 483-484). The last part of line 484 is unintelligible, but over the course of just these few lines, Angie had been picking up her pace and the excitement in her voice and her body language suggests that she is in the middle of an event of jouissance—in the middle of figuring out a complex interpretation of a story she was reading and discussing. Thus, her understated

“yeah” (line 486) points to the idea that Mrs. Green’s statement that “maybe he’s [Frank] not real at all” (line 485), is a restatement of what Angie said on line 484. Regardless of what Angie said on line 484, Mrs. Green’s statement is confirmation that Angie’s proposal was acknowledged, recognized, and held social significance. The new interpretation has Glory being placed in a psychiatric rest home where she constructs an elaborate romance with an imaginative boy from Argentina named Frank. It is in this fashion that data analysis was conducted for this dissertation.

Finally, this dissertation used participant artifacts primarily for triangulation purposes. For example, Figure 9, below, was used to confirm Ravna’s excitement with

Chopsticks (Anthony & Corral, 2012).

Figure 9. Student Artifact Sample

In Figure 9, above, the second panel reads: “Hi, I’m Ravna. Welcome to my life. I like

Chopsticks, Greek stuff, drawing and writing. So here’s my life.” This assignment was designed to relay a critical event that happened over the course of the student’s seventh- grade year; in this case, Ravna singles out her enjoyment reading and interpreting the graphic novel Chopsticks. Thus, it helps triangulate and verify her excitement about this text. Overall, this approach to data analysis, combined with a telling case study rationale

(Mitchell, 1984), allows this dissertation to show how the conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance are manifested in the classroom and from there, refine and build on extant theoretical constructs.

Chapter 4: Findings

The research questions guiding this dissertation ask how the constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance are conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how these empirical findings refine the current theoretical constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance. As such, the analysis of each construct is organized around a single case that manifests the said conditions. The chapter is organized into four sections: alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance. Each section begins with a microethnographic discourse analysis of the case and how the construct of the condition was manifested in the particular classroom with particular participants and contexts; each section ends with a discussion of the grounded theoretical constructs derived from the case.

The case study of the condition of alienation analyzes an interview with Will and a literacy event narrative he told about a story he wrote in class earlier that year.

Theoretical constructs derived from analysis of the case study concern Marx’s (1961) concept of surplus value as it relates to alienation and surplus jouissance (Lacan,

1991/2007) and the construct of storytelling rights (Shuman, 1986) theorizing student ownership. I additionally introduce Bakhtin’s theory of subjecthood (1990) and synthesize it with Lacan’s. The case study of the condition of engagement analyzes

Harper’s participation in a digital informational writing unit. The theoretical construct of engagement is critiqued through an application of an analysis of procedural display

(Bloome, Puro, & Theodorou, 1989) to suggest that much of what researchers and teachers assume to be engagement is not. The case study of the condition of pleasure

analyzes the shared writing event of Mia, Charlotte, and Emma. The theoretical constructs derived from analysis of the case study highlight the emancipatory potential of pleasure and laughter and its import in classroom research. Finally, the case study of the condition of jouissance analyzes a conversation between Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs.

Lewis about a graphic novel and Ravna and Olivia’s joint effort with Angie to interpret it.

The theoretical constructs derived from analysis of the case study expand Barthes

(1973/1975) and Lacan (2004/2014; 1991/2007; 1966/2006; 1992) by placing jouissance in classroom settings and supplying empirical evidence of jouissance in classroom settings. Additionally, it is suggested that jouissance is socially constructed in interactions and is not only an individual experience.

Alienation

Data for this case study on the condition of alienation are from an interview I conducted with Will on March 21st, 2013 at 10:50 a.m. I am not conducting a case study of Will, although I will provide contextual information about him as a student and person; instead, I am conducting a case study of the condition of alienation that Will reported in his interview with me. The use of interviews to elicit information is widely practiced and methodologically consistent with this dissertation’s use of ethnographic and qualitative methods; however, it should be noted as a limitation that the literacy events here analyzed were narrativized within the interactional event of an interview. However, I used participant observation and student writing samples to triangulate these data. It is also important to keep in mind that I am not claiming Will is perpetually alienated in or during language arts class; rather, that Will felt alienated during certain literacy events. In

this section, alienation is first presented as a condition of curricular decisions. After presentation of the empirical findings, there is a theoretical discussion refining the construct of alienation through a synthesis of surplus value and storytelling rights

(Shuman, 1986) focusing on ownership claims. The theoretical refining also involves using Bakhtin’s discussion of subjecthood as authorship (1990) to inform Lacan’s conception of alienation (1966/2006).

Will. Will was a 12-year-old black male who enjoyed drawing (lines 288-314; cf.

Will’s entire interview in Appendix B), playing football and working out (lines 12-87), and playing video games (lines 89-94) “like Black Ops 2 [and] Halo” (line 91-92), which are military-style first-person shooter type games. In the classroom he was quiet and often seemed unsure of his role, but he was well liked by his peers and interactions with classmates and faculty were amiable. His twin sister was also in Mrs. Green’s sixth-grade class, and although their interactions were never antagonistic, they occupied different social circles. His favorite subject was science, with language arts coming in second. Will declared he did not enjoy writing, either in school or out of school (lines 326-329; 288-

314). However, he admitted that he sometimes gets “hooked” (line 334).

Transcript 5

Will Does Not Like Writing

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 13 326 Robert: uhmm 327 this is a very simple question 328 uh - do you like writing? 329 Will: well I don’t really like writing 330 but sometimes I get interested into it 331 like whatever I’m writing about 332 I start like get interested into it 333 and want to keep writing 334 like it will hook me onto it 335 but I don’t necessarily like it 336 Robert: okay 337 so umm 338 it would depend on the topic? 339 Will: yeah

In Transcript 5, Will answered that he does not like writing (line 329, 335). This points to his alienation in and during language arts events, especially those involving writing. After all, logic would dictate that one cannot enjoy something one does not like.

However, Will qualified his answer by stating that he does, at times, get interested in what he is writing about (lines 330-334). In other words, because there are times Will enjoys writing, I argue that Will’s reported hatred of writing is less an inherent dislike of composition, but rather a dislike of the topics he writes about in school (338-339).

Transcript 6 details interactional units 8-10 and discusses Will’s views of writing from his previous year in fifth grade.

Transcript 6

Writing in 5th Grade

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 8 208 Robert: now who was your teacher last year? 9 209 or 210 first of all 211 what school did you attend last year? 212 Will: uh 213 Rapid Falls 214 Robert: okay 8 215 and then who was your uh 216 language arts teacher? 217 Will: well we had like one teacher for 218 every subject 219 so our teacher was Mrs. Henry 220 Robert: Henry 221 okay 222 what kinda writing did you do 223 in Mrs. Henry’s class 224 last year 225 Will: uhmm 226 we kinda did like a lota writing 227 like stories 228 and 229 fiction 230 non-fiction writing 231 fantasies 232 Robert: okay 233 Will: we wrote po- 234 some poems too 235 I can’t remember them though 10 236 Robert: now did you like the writing you did for the most part in her class? 237 Will: uhh 238 yeah 239 Robert: what is one 240 maybe one assignment 241 that stands out from last year 242 Will: uhmmm 243 uhmmm

244 I’m not really sure 245 I don’t really remember all the things that we did 246 like I can’t really think of one that just pops out 247 they were all like equal

Here Will’s inability to remember anything he wrote the year previous suggests he did not find many of these assignments enjoyable. Compared to most of the other students I interviewed, that Will could not “think of one that just pops out” (line 246) is telling. In other words, Will felt alienated the previous year in and during writing events.

In Mrs. Green’s class that year, the students had completed three major pieces of writing: the first was a short story that was related to a book they read, Wonder (Palacio,

2012), which is about bullying and disabilities; the second was a piece of fan fiction where students had to add onto or rewrite part of The Outsiders (Hinton, 1967), which is a story set in 1965 Tulsa, Oklahoma, and follows Ponyboy and his gang’s problems with the police and a rival gang; the third was a digital writing project designed to share information on a set of various pre-ordained topics (e.g. bullying in schools). Will stated that he most enjoyed The Outsiders fan fiction writing (lines 430-461).

Transcript 7

Will’s The Outsiders Fan Fiction

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 15 486 Will: uhmm 487 I did this thing 488 like they were in the barn this one time 489 and the cops 490 I made it 491 I made a part where 492 like the cops were looking for them 493 and then they came inside the barn 494 and searched it 495 so they had 496 to hide 497 and at one point the cops got really close to where they were hiding 498 Robert: do you mean the church? 499 when they were hiding out? 500 Will: yeah 501 Robert: yeah 502 I- 503 Robert: it does kinda seem like a barn 504 cuz no one’s in there 505 umm 506 and the cops came in 507 but they didn’t find them 508 Will: yeah 509 Robert: so was it pretty suspenseful? 510 Will: yeah 511 Robert: neat 512 alright 513 very cool 514 uh now why did you choose to do that 515 do you remember 516 did you think there was just something missing 517 Will: uhmm 518 I just wanted to do that because 519 it seemed like that chapter 520 like around that part of the story 521 was kinda boring

522 a little bit 523 so I just wanted to add something 524 cool or just suspenseful to make it seem more exciting 525 to keep you interested in the book

Transcript 7 is from Will’s literacy event narrative about the fan fiction he wrote for The

Outsiders and the embedded narrative is the section he wrote into the middle of the novel.

In this transcript, Will here evidenced his desire for more action in his decision of where to rewrite The Outsiders (lines 518-525). This again suggests that while Will did not like many of the assignments he completed in language arts classrooms, there are certain stories and narratives that he finds interesting and engaging, although these may not be considered school appropriate.

The types of stories and narratives he did enjoy, both reading and writing, are rife with action and adventure:

Transcript 8

Will Writes Stories With Too Much Excitement

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 16 537 Robert: uhmm all right 538 I have I think two more questions for you 539 how do you see yourself 540 if you need me to re-explain this question I can 541 but I’m going to ask it first 542 how do you see yourself as a writer? 543 kinda what’s your sense of yourself as a writer? 544 Will: like uhh 545 Robert: how do you view yourself as a writer 546 like say compared to your classmates 547 Will: uhmm, 548 I think like 549 I write a little bit more action stuff 550 and a little bit more people - 551 like mine is more excit- 552 is exciting 553 or has a little bit too much excitement 554 to it

Will’s answer to my question about how he saw himself as a writer is an indicator of the alienation Will felt during many literacy events in that what he wanted to write he felt he could not. He admitted that the stories he wrote, and the stories he wanted to write, have

“too much excitement” (line 553). By this, Will was referencing the unstated rules around what can and cannot be written about in the classroom. That is, in his warning on line

553, he is implicitly stating that stories with “too much excitement” are not school sanctioned. These rules are not often explicit, but include prohibitions against sex, death, blood, genitalia, suicide, weapons, wars, etc. Will did not view the stories he likes to write—stories with action and guns and bombs—as school sanctioned.

Will’s literacy event narrative. To further conceptualize the type of story Will felt like he could not write in school, below I analyze his response to my interview question about his favorite writing project. That is, to further warrant the interpretation that Will did in fact, at times, find pleasure in language arts writing and simultaneously further detail what types of stories Will wanted to write but that he often felt were not school sanctioned, I here analyze Will’s literacy event narrative (Transcript 9; cf.

Appendix B for the transcript of Will’s entire interview) about his favorite writing project; this excerpt (minutes 8:46-11:28) immediately follows his statement about not enjoying writing.

Transcript 9

Will’s Literacy Event Narrative

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 14 344 Robert: so looking back over the course of your entire uh 345 let's call it your academic career, okay? 346 so from kindergarten to six- to right now 347 to sixth grade- 348 can you think of one writing project 349 that stands out in your mind as- 350 you just loved it 351 Will: probably in the uhh sixth grade 352 we had to write the - our Halloween project 353 I just had a lot of ideas coming into my mind 354 like what I wanted to write 355 Robert: and that was this year? 356 Will: yeah er yeah. 357 like last year but sixth grade 358 Robert: sixth grade 359 Will: the beginning of sixth grade 360 Robert: okay 361 can you explain the Halloween project to me? 362 cuz no one has ever said that before… 363 Will: you had to make a Halloween story 364 based off of like… 365 they gave you this piece of paper 366 that started off with something like 367 “My…my…pro- my costume ripped 368 and he is using his brother's." 369 and you have to like describe the costume 370 and like what it did, 371 and like did it give you like superpowers and stuff 372 and like what would the super powers do 373 like what he used to do- 374 what he do - 375 like what did the person do with it? 376 Robert: umm-hmm 377 Will: like new characters you could make in the book 378 or like report 379 or like writing 380 so like you could basically do whatever you want

381 it just had to go along with the beginning paper. 382 Robert: with the…kinda the prompt? 383 Will: yeah-yeah 384 Robert: neat 385 can you tell me - can you describe your uh - your story for me? 386 Will: uh… 387 Robert: as much as you can remember 388 just kind of like a summary almost 389 Will: well mine - 390 mine was kinda crazy- [Mine] 391 Robert: [that's] fine 392 Will: mine like- 393 so he got the costume 394 and then it gave him superpowers 395 but it just turns out that on that da- night 396 the dog that ate his homework ate him 397 and then he… 398 the suit gave him superpowers 399 so he like somehow blasted out of the dog 400 but the dog turned into like a man-eating dog 401 and reproduced 402 and they were all over the world 403 so he had to stop it 404 and then he ended up nuking the world to destroy all of them 405 Robert: @@@@@@@@ 406 Will: except he was the only one tha- that survived 407 cuz he was the only one with the suit on 408 so no one else survived 409 Robert: so then the whole world ended, huh? 410 Will: yeah, I guess so.

The literacy event that Will decided was his favorite was an assignment given by

Mrs. Green earlier that school year on or near Halloween. The assignment was a writing prompt that began with the protagonist’s costume ripping and requiring they use a sibling’s costume, which somehow had magical properties. Will reported that he wrote

his story about how his dog eats his homework and then eats him. Luckily, the costume he was wearing gave him super powers and so he blasted out of the dog; however, the dog continued eating humans and reproduced, spreading over the entire world. Will’s protagonist finds a way to destroy all the dogs via nuclear bomb, but in the process, he kills everyone else on earth.

Moving into the analysis, please note that of import is Will’s vicarious relationship with the protagonist; although the piece was written in third person, through an analysis of his use of possessives, I argue that Will felt a deep connection not only to the story that he wrote but to the central character as well. Regarding Will’s body language during the interview, he did not signal excitement during the first eight minutes.

His body language was largely indifferent, prosodic features were dominated by soft intonation and low volume, and he often began answers with qualifiers. Collectively, these contextualization cues (Gumperz, 1982) suggest an ambivalent affect, which began to shift when he narrativized his literacy event. This shift is fully realized between lines

392-393, when Will abruptly jumped from a digetic hedge, “Mine like-” (line 392), vicariously into his narrative, “So he got the costume…” (lines 393-408). As his story picked up steam, Will began to accelerate his utterances and his facial expressions suggested excitement.

Will repeated the possessive pronoun “mine” four times in lines 389-392, and although the last “mine” (line 392) may have been used due to my interruption, these signal an emotional and possessive attachment to this story and function as an ownership claim. Critical to his ownership (I discuss the concept of ownership in the theoretical

findings below) was the fact that in this assignment, “you could basically do whatever you want[ed], it just had to go along with the [prompt]” (lines 37-38). From the general framing of the question to Will’s increased speed and indicators of excitement in his speech, I contend Will did not feel alienated during the literacy event he reported on in the interview. Due to the way the prompt was constructed and then the ability he had (or felt he had) to write a story however he wanted, Will, during this literacy event, was excited and enjoyed writing. Transcript 10 provides additional evidence of his enjoyment.

Transcript 10

Will Enjoyed Writing Halloween Story

I.U. LN Speaker Message Unit 14 420 Robert: and is that one of the ones you kept going on? 421 Will: yeah 422 Robert: like you got hooked and kept writing↑ 423 neat 424 very cool

Note that in Transcript 10, my question (line 420) references lines 330-334 (cf. Transcript

5 above), where Will stated that sometimes he gets going on a writing assignment and finds it interesting. Additionally, “that one” (line 420) refers to Will’s Halloween story, as he had just finished narrativizing it in the interview.

Looking at the transcript and the story material, it is apparent that this story borrows heavily from popular culture, the video games he plays, etc. For example, his protagonist getting eaten by the dogs (lines 396) before blasting out is similar to the “in the belly of the beast” trope (cf. Campbell, 2004). I argue that Will’s excitement about this particular writing event is due to both his freedom to write something with “too much

excitement” (line 334) and his ability to use the narrative structures he had appropriated from popular culture, especially from action movies and videogames. Transcript 11 evidences the connection between classroom literacy practices and Will’s use of popular culture.

Transcript 11

Video Games and Their Connection to Books

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 5 104 Robert: so what have you been reading in class 105 for your outsider reading book right now? 106 Will: uhh 107 Ranger’s Apprentice 108 it’s like a 109 it’s kinda like 110 wha- 111 it- 112 what got me reading it 113 is like 114 it’s kinda like one of my videogames 115 Robert: okay 116 Will: and you can like 117 make me have connections 118 to uhh 119 what I played before 120 like it keeps me interested in it

There are multiple reasons Will did not have many opportunities to write (and read) stories like this in language arts. But beyond the obvious curricular and teaching decisions is the fact that violence and death are being taken out of school-sanctioned literacy events. Quantitative research continues to chart male literacy scores as steadily declining (cf. Cole, 1997) and, among others, Dyson (1997), Newkirk (2002), Gee

(2003), and Smith and Wilhelm’s (2002) posit that one of the largest factors is the

exclusion of narratives replete with action, adventure, and violence. Driven largely by a well-intentioned desire to cleanse the classroom of literacy activities that portray (or in the case of imaginative play, mimic) violence, stories that some students find engrossing are becoming increasingly scarce in the classroom. In their discussion on children’s “war play”, Carlsson-Paige and Levin (1987) quote a common response to such play by an elementary teacher: ‘“I think that allowing children to engage in war play undermines all the values we want to teach.... as teachers we have a responsibility to sabotage it”’ (p. 5).

There are, of course, valid reasons for not using, reading, and writing violent narratives. (cf. Gee, 2003; Newkirk, 2002; Edmiston, 2007; and Smith & Wilhlem, 2002 for discussions about violence, videogames, television, and movies and their impact on literacy practices, especially for adolescent males.) However, the dearth of opportunities for Will to “play” with these types of texts is detrimental in its potential to turn students off of reading and writing. As Will’s interview responses and his excitement during his retelling of his story show, Will did not appear to hate writing and reading; instead, he did not like the writing and reading that he was often required to do.

Refining alienation. In this section, I first bring in Shuman’s (1986) work on storytelling rights to discuss ownership claims related to the production of school products, tie the construct of Marx’s (1961) surplus value to education and update it with

Lacan’s notion of surplus jouissance (1991/2007), and then build on Bakhtin (1990) to refine Lacanian alienation (2014; 2007; 2006; 1992).

In her ethnography of Philadelphia adolescents, Shuman (1986) demonstrates through an analysis of fight stories how participants claim, negotiate, and contest the

right to tell a story. For example, if a student were a participant in a fight, she would have the right to tell the story whereas a participant who heard about the fight might not have

“storytelling rights” (Shuman, 1986). Across the interviews I conducted, student responses to the question I asked Will (What was your favorite writing project ever?) suggested differences between literacy event narratives relaying non-fiction or informational literacy events and those narrating fiction or poetic events. These differences are structural to some extent—students who told narratives about writing fictional stories would often summarize the plot; those relaying non-fiction would focus their attention on the assignment as it was constructed by the teacher and the topic of their research without discussing any details of what they were researching. This may have been due to their assumption that I, as a former teacher and educational researcher, already knew any information they might be able to provide. However, this inconsistency leads to a discussion on storytelling rights—that is, who gets to tell what story and how can they tell it (Shuman, 1986). Students with literacy event narratives about fiction they had written consistently told, often with enthusiasm, the plots of their stories; students relaying non-fiction narratives discussed things other than the content, which suggests that these students did not feel like they had the right to discuss the information—they did not “own” facts about, for example, temperate and tropical forests—instead, these students would often discuss their work and, if it was group work, information about their interactions with peers. The fiction-writing students, however, appeared to have the right to “tell” or speak about the literacy events around the project and the content of the story itself.

Will’s story is representative of the difference in the focus of students’ responses to the question about their favorite writing event. In other words, like the other fiction- writing students, he felt he had the right to tell his story about “man-eating [sic]” dogs

(line 400). The analysis of storytelling rights sheds light on the concept of ownership.

That is, when participants felt they had the right to provide information about their stories, it suggests an ownership claim that signals their enjoyment despite the product’s contested ownership. The focus on ownership within the construct of alienation can also be tied to the Marxist idea that the factory owner takes the profits from the worker; that is, the worker is alienated from the surplus value of her work. Within education, the production of things—papers, worksheets, tests, etc.—is problematic within this construct. Who owns student work? The student? The teacher? The school? And even if the student owns it, does the surplus value go to the teacher? In other words, in considering the student-teacher relationship in economic terms, the teacher becomes

Marx’s capitalist while the student is the worker. According to Marx, because the teacher assigns work it is she, as the capitalist, who confiscates the surplus value. It is here that

Lacan’s (1991/2007) notion of surplus jouissance is built:

Surplus value corresponds in quantity to what, in capitalism, is called “interest” or

“profit”….It is…the fruit of the employees’ labor….In other words, it is a right,

not of ownership, but rather “enjoyment.” In everyday French, you could say that

that person had la jouissance of said property or money….The employee never

enjoys that surplus product: he or she “loses” it. The work process produces him

or her as an “alienated” subject, simultaneously producing a loss….The capitalist,

as Other, enjoys that excess product, and thus the subject finds him or herself in

the unenviable situation of working for the Other’s enjoyment, sacrificing him or

herself for the Other’s jouissance…. (Fink, 1996, p. 96)

From an educational perspective, this enjoyment of the surplus value ostensibly rests with the teacher. However, I argue that this surplus value/jouissance is shared by anyone benefiting from the education of students. For example, the teacher enjoys the jouissance of the student, but her administrators enjoy both her jouissance and the students; meanwhile, the school board enjoys the surplus jouissance of the administrators and the capitalists enjoy the fruits of their own workers who were (and will be in the future) products of the educational system.

Thus, combating the alienation as conceptualized in Marxism is difficult due to the relational structures built into education. In an ambitious attempt to address the alienation of students creating “useless” products, Sidorkin (2004) builds on Bakthin’s participative thinking and the eventness of being to shift the conversation from production to events. He writes,

Alienation is impossible to defeat by a frontal attack, I maintain. No curriculum

and no pedagogy, no matter how creative, can undo the tint of uselessness that

permeates academic learning. However, an educational institution can and should

try to create an event-rich life, even if based on non-educational foundations.

Such eventfulness will allow for participative thinking and doing to take hold.

Only when academic learning becomes a secondary, unimportant side of school

life, will its alienating properties be suppressed, and genuine education will

become possible. (Sidorkin, 2004, p. 261)

In other words, Sidorkin argues that as there is no way to make students produce things that are inherently meaningful (e.g. useful), then focusing on constructing schools as

“event-rich” is a path forward. The remedy has merits, but I argue that student products can be meaningful in that the subject can enjoy the fruit of her labor—the jouissance—of production.

Building on Lacan, Žižek (1989) argues that “Marx failed to cope with the paradoxes of surplus-enjoyment” (p. 54). That is, Marx did not notice the jouissance subject’s experience by being part of a group (e.g. city, state, country), and thus their behavior (e.g. voting) does not always coincide with their interests. In other words, workers can find surplus value in different places. In the same manner, I argue Sidorkin failed to cope with the enjoyment students, at times, feel when producing schoolwork.

Despite being assigned to write the Halloween story, the pleasure Will reported he experienced during this literacy event makes up for its uselessness. That is, because of the ownership Will felt about his story, as evidenced by his vicarious relationship with the protagonist and his pronoun usage, he was able to enjoy the process of production; thus, the surplus value, for Will, is the enjoyment (or jouissance in its legal definition) of production—of authorship.

Promoting pleasurable learning events is crucial to combating alienation; however, the inherent alienation of the subject (Lacan, 1966/2006) remains problematic.

If alienation is a precondition of subjecthood, how can one escape it? Referring back to

100

Chapter 2, Lacan, in perhaps his most highly regarded contribution to the field of psychology, proposes that the first alienation is the separation of the ego and subject during the mirror stage:

But what demonstrates the phenomenon of recognition, which involves

subjectivity, are the signs of triumphant jubilation and playful discovery that

characterize, from the sixth month, the child’s encounter with his image in the

mirror….What I have called the mirror stage is interesting in that it manifests the

affective dynamism by which the subject originally identifies himself with the

visual Gestalt of his own body: in relation to the still very profound lack of co-

ordination of his own motility, it represents an ideal unity, a salutary imago….It is

this capitation by the imago of the human form….[that] dominates the entire

dialectic of the child’s behavior in the presence of his similar….The child who

strikes another says that he has been struck; the child who sees another fall, cries.

Similarly, it is by means of an identification with the other that he sees the whole

gamut of reactions of bearing and display, whose structural ambivalence is clearly

revealed in his behavior, the slave being identified with the despot, the actor with

the spectator, the seduced with the seducer. (Lacan, 2006, p. 30)

Hence, Lacan’s famous formula: “The self is an other” (qtd. in Fink, 1996, p. 1). The second alienation is the child’s entrance into the symbolic, but language is also how the subject builds herself. That is, it is through language the subject is alienated, but through the other’s language one creates one’s self. Lacan writes, “A certificate tells me that I was born. I repudiate this certificate: I am not a poet, but a poem. A poem that is being

101

written, even if it looks like a subject” (1981, p. viii). The separation of ego and subject during the mirror stage and then the entrance into language are the two inherent alienations Lacan postulates.

Bakhtin, whose conception of the subject is remarkably consistent with (although pre-dating) Lacan’s (cf. Holquist, 1990), highlights the concept of authorship as a potential area for theoretical redress (Bakhtin, 1990). In his early philosophical work investigating the relationship between the author and hero, Bakhtin argues that for any textual relationship to have aesthetic validity an author must possess or consummate the hero (as an entity separate from herself), and this consummation, this “aesthetic whole is not something co-experienced, but something actively produced” (1990; p. 67):

The author’s position of being situated outside the hero is gained by conquest, and

the struggle for it is often a struggle for life….And this being outside in relation to

the hero enables the author (1) to collect and concentrate all of the hero, who,

from within himself [sic], is diffused and dispersed in the projected world of

cognition and in the open event of ethical action; (2) to collect the hero and his

life and to complete him to the point where he forms a whole by supplying all

those moments which are inaccessible to the hero himself from within (such as a

full outward image, an exterior, a background behind his back, his relation to the

event of his death and the absolute future, etc.); and (3) to justify and to

consummate the hero independently of the meaning, the achievements, the

outcome and success of the hero’s own forward-directed life….such a

102

relationship…gives birth to [the hero] as a new human being on a new plane of

existence aesthetically—as a whole. (p. 14-15)

Bakhtin sets forth his theory of aesthetics by discussing the subject’s relationship to herself and others, but unlike Kant’s transcendental synthesis through a priori universals, he argues for a dialogic one.

Bakhtin posits that one can only see one’s self in a dialogic event wherein one views through their interlocutor’s point of view their own self acting within the aesthetically consummated storyworld (narrative plane) both are concretely participating in. To put it another way, consider, Bakhtin asks us, two persons interacting. The first interlocutor sees the event from a particular and concrete point of view, which necessarily includes their field of vision and cannot include a view of themselves (or what is behind them, unknown to them, etc.); the second interlocutor, facing the first, is just as limited; however, both interlocutors, in what Bakhtin terms an “excess of vision,” make up for the lack of perspective by aesthetically fashioning an entire host of narrative devices

(chronotopes, trajectories, causal relations, etc.) and concepts onto the interlocutor in order to make an event—to “textualize” it. In other words, Bakhtin formulates a conception of subjecthood derived from the way authors interact with their heroes—they imagine themselves as whomever or whatever they are interacting with sees them. Thus, in an aesthetically valid relationship (for Bakhtin, necessarily a singular event) the two consummate their relationship by dialogically and aesthetically constructing the other as a hero (figure) who, in their participation within this storyworld, operate as if they were human in a temporal sequence (a trajectory; a narrative arc; birth-to-death; etc.) dictated

103

by the laws of the narrative plane they exist on. Bakhtin’s theory can be thought of as a dialogic aesthetic to human subjectivity and postulates that one can construct oneself but only within an aesthetically consummated relationship with another being. Holquist

(1990) comments: “It is this fact [that one “consummate(s)—or give(s) finished form to—another”] that induces Bakhtin to make one of his bolder hypotheses: to treat the activity of perception as the structure of authoring. I give shape both to others and to my self as an author gives shape to his heroes” (p. xxx). Within education, the use of

Bakhtin’s idea of authorship to refine Lacanian alienation is highly illuminating.

Taking into account more recent work on narrative and discourse analysis and the construction of identity(ies) through discursive practices (e.g. positioning, code- switching, framing, affinity grouping, etc.), I want to bring up again the literacy event narrative that Will told. In Will’s vicarious relationship with his protagonist, one is granted a glimpse into how Will views himself as a subject acting in the world. That he is authoring in a fantasy storyworld does not discount the fundamental aesthetic process that

Bakhtin postulates. Edmiston (2007) writes, “The life-and-death concerns, questions, and enquiries that mythic narratives explore have ethical dimensions. Myths not only depict the actions that heroes, monsters, and people could perform but also represent for readers or listeners how people should use their powers to act in response to, for example, violent monsters” (p. 28). Will took it upon himself (through his protagonist) to rid the world of

“man-eating” dogs. The irony is, of course, that his heroic action is seen by no one—his character does not return home a hero but is instead eternally alienated. Will’s character

104

appears to recognize that there are others whose actions he cannot control—but he can

(and does) react in manner he considers ethical and/or situationally necessary.

The case study of Will highlights the theoretical contribution Bakhtin’s conception of subjecthood as a process of authoring can offer the construct of alienation.

In particular, the idea that creative writing, or being able to author a meaningful story, has potential pedagogic significance. That the opportunity to write creatively and choose the story they wanted to write was repeatedly mentioned in my interviews with students demonstrates this (cf. Appendix B, C, and E). For example, Transcript 12 details Will’s response to my interview question about what advice he would give to his language arts teachers.

105

Transcript 12

Will’s Advice to Language Arts Teachers

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 22 671 Robert: my last question is this 672 and then we’ll wrap it up 673 if there is one- 674 looking back over the last few language arts teachers you’ve had 675 okay 676 um 677 is there one piece of advice 678 you would want to give them 679 and language arts teachers in general too 680 umm 681 about how to make class 682 both more fun and better 683 not just more fun per say 684 what helps you learn the best in English 685 or in language arts class 686 Will: like 687 what would help you learn better 688 and what would be best… 689 Robert: yeah 690 like what do you enjoying doing 691 and learning at the same time 692 Will: probably 693 like uh having time to free write 694 and like write like whatever you want 695 like write a story 696 and like being able t- 697 not having to write a story about a certain thing 698 like writing a story about whatever you want

In discussing research on children in elementary school, Wohlwend (2008) argues that play should be considered a core literacy. But by the time students reach middle school, imaginative play is no longer socially acceptable (symbolically taken away by no longer

106

getting recess); however, I argue that all people, and perhaps especially adolescents, require an outlet for their imaginary play, and according to many of the students I interviewed, creative writing can be this outlet.

In practical terms, the implication is that there remains a place for creative writing in the middle school language arts classroom. This is especially critical as the Common

Core has shifted teachers’ focus to writing and reading informational texts. If, as it is argued, students learn to write by writing, then engrossing students through creative writing assignments is cost-effective and may improve their writing skills. But whether their rote skills improve or not, I suggest alienation theory consider creative writing’s role in allowing students the potential to enjoy and find meaning in their work as students, with the possibility of reaching jouissance and thus touching the Lacanian real—that is, to a point before alienation. It should be here noted that the relationship between the subject and her alienation is complex. In other words, alienation is not always “bad”— certainly educators should try to minimize most types of alienation, but according to

Lacan alienation is not always necessarily negative—indeed, it is a precondition of subjecthood. Thus, in bringing in Bakthin’s notion of authorship, agency can claimed by students, at least at times, through meaningful writing.

Engagement

Data illustrating the condition of engagement in school settings comes from participant observation, observational fieldnotes, student artifacts, and my interview with

Harper collected during the first year of the study. As I am interested in both the literacy events in which Harper participated and how her engagement was manifested, I will

107

provide background and contextual information for both Harper and the events in discussion. During the first year of the study, students were involved in a large digital informational writing unit. Harper completed this unit in a timely manner, did all she was asked to do, and received an excellent grade; she was, by all visible accounts, engaged.

She appeared to enjoy the unit, but when she spoke more about it during our interview, she mentioned that for the final piece of the project, in which students were to make a presentation to share their research with the class, all she did was put her notes from the websites into the slides. I use this example to highlight procedural display at work and the idea that the regurgitation of sources is not inherently engaging; just because students appear to be engaged, this does not mean they are actually academically invested in said assignments. As much research on engagement is essentially the counting of time-on- task, this poses serious construct validity issues when discussing student engagement.

Engagement is often defined as either an interaction with a subject or topic, or the presence of sustained interaction with schooling in general, with the unstated connotation that when students are engaged they are enjoying learning. In this section, I narrow this use and use the term engagement to mean that students are doing and appear to be doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Harper was a fairly “typical” sixth-grade female: she enjoyed playing softball, listening to the popular boy band One Direction, and texting her friends after school. Her family’s middle class background was also typical in regards to her peers and the community as a whole. Before entering Memorial Middle School and Mrs. Green’s classroom, Harper attended Rapid Falls Elementary School, located on the same grounds.

108

It was there she started to develop her attraction to reading and writing. In third grade, she was placed in an advanced language arts class, and when asked in the interview (cf.

Appendix C for the full transcript) what her favorite subject in school was, she replied

“language arts” (line 29). Harper enjoyed reading historical fiction and liked writing, but said she did not write outside of school unless she was really “bored” (line 122). In her interview, however, Harper repeatedly exclaimed how much she loved writing, especially when she had relative autonomy and was able to write creatively. She even discussed, after learning she would have a writing assignment due, how her biggest worry came not from the assignment but from having to choose among the many ideas she had for it. She claimed to solve the issue by “writing like three stories and then turning the best one in”

(line 487). Overall, Harper appeared to be a well-adjusted sixth-grade student: she felt comfortable writing and reading, appeared self-confident, achieved good grades and was socially adept with peers and adults.

The instructional unit that this case analyzes was a digital informational writing unit. The major project for the unit was the research, writing, and presentation of an informational topic through a digital platform. Harper used Keynote, which is Mac’s version of PowerPoint, to present the information she learned about her topic, bullying.

Some students used Garage Band to record audio lecture/presentations and others made videos with iMovie; however, Keynote was the most commonly used mode. Students were able to pick from three topics: bullying, sports injuries, or childhood hunger. The unit started on Monday, January 28th 2013 and ended with presentations on Wednesday and Thursday, February 20th and 21st, 2013. It was tied to an informational nonfiction

109

book, Titanic: Voices From the Disaster (Hopkinson, 2012), which the students listened to on audiotape across the unit. Table 10, below, details the dates of the ten classroom observations and provides a brief overview of the days’ lessons.

Table 10

Observation schedule of Digital Informational Writing Unit

Date Overview of Lesson Monday 01/28/13 Field trip to district’s technology office to learn techniques for researching online. Wednesday Listen to chapter 6 of Titanic; find three articles about 01/30/13 informational topic. Monday 02/04/13 Listen to chapter 13 of Titanic and practice taking notes. Tuesday 02/05/13 Lecture on the structure of informational texts; students had time with computers to search for articles about their topics. Thursday 02/07/13 Lecture on reliable sources; students reading and annotating their articles. Friday 02/08/13 Lecture on how to present in Keynote, Garage Band, and iMovie. Monday 02/11/13 Class workshop: students working on finding articles, annotating them, drafting a storyboard for their presentations, and writing their informational texts. Wednesday Class workshop: students working on finding articles, annotating 02/13/13 them, drafting a storyboard for their presentations, and writing their informational texts. Wednesday Presentations 02/20/13 Thursday 02/21/13 Presentations

Overall, the unit had clear directions, plenty of scaffolding, and it provided students with enough time to complete their projects primarily in school.

Harper’s Digital Informational Writing Unit. Harper conducted her project on bullying. Her research questions were: What are the long-term effects of bullying? What is bullying? and How many people are bullied? Throughout this unit, Harper appeared to myself and her teachers to be engaged, defined using the engagement field’s definition(s).

110

She was chosen as one of only three students in her class by Mrs. Green to attend a field trip on the first day of the unit to the district’s technology office to learn how to research online, which she would later teach to her classmates. Harper completed all her work on time, received an excellent grade, and seemed to enjoy the unit and the project. Transcript

13, below, details her thoughts about this unit (cf. Appendix C for transcript).

Transcript 13

Harper on the Digital Informational Unit

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 22 497 Harper: so part of what we're doing is just trying to get used to this technology 498 but then 499 also doing something for language arts 500 we're just like using the technology to do a report on a problem that almost everyone has faced 501 except like hunger 502 not everyone has faced that. 503 it's pretty much all relatable topics, 504 and using the technology to share what we think about them 505 the facts we think about them 506 I picked bullying 507 but I'm doing the long-term effects of bullying 508 and it makes you depressed 509 and things like that 510 and I wondered 511 does it follow you into your adulthood 512 if you're bullied badly are you like affected later in life? 513 and I'm finding that you are 514 in big ways 515 it's not just like… 516 Robert: really? 517 so what kind of research are you finding that is showing

111

that? 518 Harper: it's like people 519 like psychologists that are putting them on the Internet 520 there is one website that I felt kinda weird going on 521 because it's called mental health dot com 522 but it was a really good article 523 and it was a long article 524 and it was full of facts 525 and then at the end it told information about the author so I knew it was reliable. 526 it was actually a really good article. 527 but it was kind of a weird website to be on for a school thing 528 Robert: do you feel there is a stigma to mental health? 529 Harper: yeah 530 Robert: is that pretty prevalent in middle school then? 531 Harper: yeah 532 I think so 533 xxxxxx like if they found 534 oh why are you going to mental health dot com? 535 when first somebody sees the link mental health dot com 536 I'm like I'm doing bullying for a project 537 they think what is wrong with you 538 xxxxxxxxx 539 Robert: what are you eventually going to do for the project? 540 Harper: I'm doing a Keynote 541 I'm just doing bullets 542 I'm basically putting my notes onto the Keynote 543 and then I'm going to go into more detail talking to the class

Harper’s response to my question about the unit they were currently working on, a digital informational unit, began with an answer as to what the unit was about, her own project on bullying, and her interest in the topic (lines 497-512). Within her answer we

112

find a few references to the unit’s rationale regarding its purpose and planning; Harper’s answer mimics much of what Mrs. Green had said about the project, both to myself and to the class as a whole. For example, in line 497, Harper started off by saying that “part of what we’re doing is just trying to get used to the technology.” This is almost exactly how Mrs. Green talked about the unit; in particular, Mrs. Green was concerned with students understanding how to use the various digital platforms that their school district made available—in this case, Keynote, Garage Band, and iMovie; she felt it was important that students knew how to use these programs. Next, in line 500, she mentioned that the report is “on a problem that almost everyone has faced.” Again, this is similar in tone to the way Mrs. Green introduced the unit and why it was important for the students to complete it. Harper then used the term “wondered” (line 510), which was repeatedly used by Mrs. Green across the year; indeed, many of their note taking assignments included a section titled “I wonder…”. Finally, she mentioned that the three choices they had for the project were all “pretty much relatable topics” (line 503). This term, relatable, was again a term used frequently by Mrs. Green. I bring these points up to warrant the claim that Harper appeared to be actively on task; she understood the assignment, understood the rationale, and appeared to learn about and understand her topic. Moreover, the idea that Harper was mimicking Mrs. Green points to the construct of procedural display, which is discussed in depth below.

When I asked her whether she was going to use Keynote, Garage Band, or iMovie for her project, Harper replied:

113

Transcript 14

Harper’s “I’m Just Doing Bullets”

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 22 540 Harper: I'm doing a Keynote 541 I'm just doing bullets 542 I'm basically putting my notes onto the Keynote 543 and then I'm going to go into more detail talking to the class

These lines are key to understanding Harper’s interaction with this project. We can see here that in practice, her digital writing is “basically putting my notes onto the Keynote”

(line 542). Key to this interpretation is the use of the word “basically,” which in this context means Harper is simply copying the notes she took onto Keynote. In other words,

Harper, who had read a few articles and took notes on them, essentially transferred this information into her Keynote presentation slides. I am not arguing that this unit was ill conceived or a waste of time. Certainly, Harper seemed to have learned skills and information about digital writing, informational writing, reading informational texts, note taking, etc. These skills are important and worth spending time on in the classroom. What

I am arguing is that while across the unit, and even within the interview, Harper appeared to enjoy this unit, but within her comment about “basically putting my notes onto the keynote” (line 542), one can see that there was little authoring being done—that is, she did not feel she had ownership or storytelling rights over her writing; this can be further supported by her mimicking of Mrs. Green’s language to discuss the project. In brief, and although Harper was engaged and on task, this unit did not excite her in ways other writing assignments had.

114

Refining engagement. My central critique regarding the construct of engagement is that the term is too broad and used in so many fashions as to make almost impossible to use. For example, in Christenson et al.’s (2012) definition of engagement (cf. Chapter 2), the authors announce that students must earnestly participate, “[commit] to learning,” find school meaningful, and expend “energy and effort” (p. 816-817). Fredrick’s et al.

(2004) three-part definition:

Behavioral engagement draws on the idea of participation; it includes involvement

in academic and social or extracurricular activities and is considered crucial for

achieving positive academic outcomes and preventing dropping out. Emotional

engagement encompasses positive and negative reactions to teachers, classmates,

academics, and school and is presumed to create ties to an institution and influence

willingness to do the work. Finally, cognitive engagement draws on the idea of

investment; it incorporates thoughtfulness and willingness to exert the effort

necessary to comprehend complex ideas and master difficult skills. (p. 60)

One approach to dealing with the various definitions and uses of engagement is to use the term only when more than one of the components are researched—that is, as a meta- concept (Guthrie & Anderson, 1999; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). However, I argue that using engagement as an umbrella term for all of these definitions does not clarify the condition of engagement.

Instead of engagement as a multidimensional construct, this dissertation suggests narrowing the scope of what engagement means. Thus, engagement should be conceptualized as interactional intellectual effort within a learning event. In other words,

115

the students are working—they are engaged. After all, much learning takes place in this condition—not all learning events have to include pleasure. As discussed in Chapter 2, much of engagement research is essentially the counting of time-on-task. In other words, are students doing what they are supposed to be doing? Two flaws to this approach immediately come to light: First, students are adept at procedural display (Bloome, Puro,

& Theodorou, 1989)—that is, they act the part during class and appear to be doing what the teacher wants them to be doing, and this type of student behavior will also fool researchers. For example, on the ninth day of the unit during writing workshop time, I wrote the following fieldnote: “Some of the students seem to be reading their outside books, others are working on annotating their research sources, but most are acting like they are working” (Fieldnotes, Thursday Feb 7, 2013). Second, even if they are working and engaged, this does not mean they are excited. This distinction between engagement and excitement or pleasure is critical, and while not every project, event, or lesson needs to be (or even can be) exciting, conflating the two and pretending that teachers and students are excited when they are really just doing their work is problematic.

Procedural display is not uncommon in schools and I observed other instances across the three years of the study. Bloome, Puro, and Theodorou (1989) define procedural display as:

(a) the display by teacher and students, to each other, of a set of academic and

interactional procedures that themselves count as the accomplishment of a lesson,

and (b) the enactment of lesson is not necessarily related to the acquisition of

intended academic or nonacademic content or skills but is related to the set of

116

cultural meanings and values held by the local educational community for

classroom education. (p. 272)

The import of procedural display lies in its charge that what is often assumed to be engagement with a topic is often engagement with the cultural role of “playing school”

(e.g. raising your hand, making eye contact, etc.). Thus, for educational researchers and teachers, counting time-on-task is far harder than it looks.

I view procedural display as part of the condition of engagement—that is, participants are doing what they are supposed to do to be counted as doing a lesson. For example, during the moments that Harper was actively reading, writing, or thinking about bullying she was engaged—that is, she was actually doing that which she was also procedurally displaying she was doing. I argue that during “normal” (e.g. not pleasurable but not alienating either) learning events, an increase in procedural display denotes a lack of ownership that makes the condition less pleasurable, whereas a decrease in procedural display marks higher levels of excitement. Included within the condition of engagement are tasks that might be boring (e.g. worksheets) but necessary, assuming they require enough intellectual effort to engage.

The final comment I will make concerns the ownership (or lack there of) that

Harper references regarding her project. In this case, she simply transferred her notes from the articles she read onto her Keynote presentation. However, the regurgitation of sources does not imply authorship. In her interview, Harper defined writing as “using your creativity to make a story, but if it’s not really creative writing, I don’t really know”

(lines 98-100). I argue that what Harper was trying to get at was not necessarily creative

117

writing projects, but rather that if she does not own the product she is authoring, then she does not define it as writing. Instead, such writing would be similar to “just doing bullets….basically putting my notes onto the Keynote” (lines 541-543). For Harper, writing means telling her story, and not just in terms of the personal narrative: it requires making meaning rather than just repeating it.

Pleasure

In this section on pleasure, I analyze a video recording of three students, Mia,

Charlotte, and Emma, who participated in partner writing three narratives based on a prompt given by Mrs. Lewis during the third year of the study. During this event, Mia,

Charlotte, and Emma evidenced pleasure through their almost constant smiles and laughter. The event took place on Friday, February 13th, 2015, on my 17th observation of the year. The students were in the middle of an essay-writing unit. Their homework that weekend was to finish their first draft. However, as Mrs. Lewis made clear in her introduction to the class, this assignment was designed to break up the perceived monotony of informational and nonfiction reading and writing. The activity consisted of using what are essentially dice that have different pictures on each side; after the dice were rolled, whatever pictures were face up must be used within the students’ stories.

There are multiple sets of writing prompt dice/cubes on the market; however, the emic term used within the class was “story cubes” and Mrs. Lewis used a set named Rory’s

Story Cubes. After Mrs. Lewis introduced the writing task, some students in the class began to form groups while other students start writing individually. Mia, Charlotte, and

Emma all stood up from their desks, grabbed their notebooks, and moved to the front of

118

the room, on the zebra striped black and white rug; there they sat down on the floor cross- legged and began to talk.

Figure 10. Mia, Charlotte, and Emma’s Positioning Within the Classroom

I approached them and asked if I could place the camera close so as to pick up their voices; they consented and I adjusted the camera and angle accordingly. Looking through the camera lens, Mia sat on the left, Charlotte in the middle, and Emma on the right.

Figure 11, below, is similar to what their body postures and camera angle are in the video recording. Please note that in the figure below, all three generic models, provided through the software, are identical and not intended to look like any of the three girls.

119

Figure 11. Mia, Charlotte, and Emma Positioning “Picture”

It was not unusual for me to move the camera around the classroom, especially during group work. Aside from a few comments and glances at the camera, the girls ignored it and it did not seem to greatly affect their interactions.

Mia and Charlotte were among the more popular girls in class and friends; Emma was in their friend group, although not as popular. All three were white females; all three were relatively good students and enjoyed language arts. As their partner writing began,

Mia was sucking on a green Ring Pop, a type of sucker that attaches to a finger as if it is a ring, and Emma was eating a regular sucker. After a brief introductory period where they shared a few ideas, the girls decided that they would set a timer on Emma’s phone and switch notebooks every five minutes. The transcript of their conversation, below, is long; however, I felt it important to provide the entire event. After the transcript, I discuss

120

pertinent lines evidencing the pleasure all three girls showed during their time writing.

Please note that, following Du Bois, Schuetze-Coburn, Cumming, and Paolino (1993), I use the @ symbol for laughter—one @ for each pulse; when an @ is attached to the front of a word, the speaker is laughing while speaking (cf. Appendix A for the rest of the transcription symbols).

Transcript 15

Story Cube Narrative Writing

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 1 131 Robert: do you girls mind if I um 132 put the camera down here? 133 it’s gonna be kinda obnoxious to be honest 134 Mia: it’s okay 135 Robert: it’s okay? 136 Charlotte: yeah 137 Robert: thank you 2 138 Charlotte: but anyways 139 so they’re like up on the mountain 140 and they xxxxx go down down ((Charlotte is pointing her finger down and moving it in a circular direction.)) 141 @@ 142 Emma: ((unintelligible)) 143 Mia: oh ((unintelligible)) 3 144 Charlotte: okay what’s your idea Mia? 145 Mia: okay so like what if the 146 the girl and the boy climbed up the mountain 147 and like ((unintelligible))at the top 148 and they like danced @@ @because @it @was @a @celebration 149 Charlotte: @@ 4 150 Emma: how long should we each write for? 151 Charlotte: we’re writing for twenty-five minutes 152 lets just say five minutes 153 Mia: yeah 154 Emma: ready? 155 Charlotte: so are you both writing love stories? 156 Mia: yep

121

157 Emma: uh-huh! 158 ((unintelligible)) 159 Mia: is it starting? 160 we all write start our own 161 Emma: we’ll pass three times and go like this ((Emma moves her notebook clockwise to explain the direction that they will pass their notebooks.)) 162 Mia: I can’t think of an idea though 163 Charlotte: ((Smiles, waves her hand like she’s getting ready to write)) oohh- let’s start 164 Emma: I already have mine 165 ready set go 5 166 ((Emma points with pencil at Charlotte who is already writing.)) What the fuck? 167 M&C&E @@@@@@@ 168 Charlotte: I mean 169 it is story cubes 6 170 ((The girls begin writing.)) 7 171 Mia: ((unintelligible)) 172 Emma: Mine’s is weird 173 ((unintelligible)) 174 Mia: @@@@@ 175 Charlotte: are you guys reading mine? 176 ((Emma shakes her head} 177 okay good ((she pulls her notebook up to her chest as if to protect it)) @@@ 178 Mia: I’m looking at the board 179 Charlotte: you want us to read it next xxxx 180 xxxxxxx five more minutes just in case to read it 181 Charlotte: ((unintelligible)) 182 Emma: xxxxx I haven’t even start- 183 I’ve written three words 184 Mia: I’ve written xxxxx 8 185 ((Girls are silently writing)) 9 186 Charlotte: @@@@@@ 187 Mia: ((looks up at Charlotte and smiles)) 188 M&C @@@@ 189 Emma: okay…hu- 190 Charlotte: ((unintelligible)) 191 M&C @@@@@@@@ 192 Mrs. Lewis ((unintelligible)) ((Mia and Charlotte look toward the center of the classroom at Mrs. Lewis.))

122

193 Charlotte: sorry. 10 194 ((Girls writing quietly.)) 11 195 k I’m waiting till we switch 196 ((unintelligible)) 197 ((unintelligible)) 198 M&C: @@@@@@@ 199 Mia: ((unintelligible)) 200 Charlotte: xxxxxxxx @@@@@ 201 I like how xxxxxxx 202 Emma: whaddu say? 203 I didn’t hear you 204 Charlotte: ((unintelligible)) 12 205 ((touches the arm of Mia)) you’re so annoying 206 Mia: tell me 207 Charlotte: okay I’ll tell you later ((moves her eyes to point to Emma as if to say I can’t tell you now because she is here.)) 208 Mia: ((moves eyes as if to ask why should it matter)) 209 Charlotte: what? 210 Mia: ((unintelligible)) 211 Charlotte: is it her? ((raised voice looking at Emma; seems to be repeating Mia’s question.)) 212 no 213 Emma: oh, okay 214 I was like…no no xxxxx 13 215 ((Girls start to switch notebooks clockwise. Emma passes to Mia, Mia passes to Charlotte, and Charlotte passes to Emma.)))) 216 wait no@@ 217 oh wait 218 that didn’t work out well 14 219 Charlotte: ((Starts reading Mia’s story outloud.)) “One day Tom and Carol…” 220 Mia: ((Raises her hand to stop Charlotte from reading.)) @@ - I have really weird names 221 ((raises head and looks at Emma)) ahh (whispered) 222 Emma: ((unintelligible)) 15 223 Charlotte: ((reaches over taps the phone they are using to time their writing)) okay we need to start 16 224 Emma: T H E I R not ((unintelligible)) 17 225 Mia: oh wait I don’t know what to do 226 ((looks at Emma)) so wait is this at the dance?

123

227 are they at the dance right now? 228 Emma: yeah 229 the next xxxxxx 15 230 Charlotte: ((points at Emma and the phone)) here you need to start the time right now 14 231 ((places finger on lips smirking)) Mr. Fuzzy??? 232 Mia: shut up @@@@@ 233 Charlotte: @@@@@ 234 Mia: I forgot your xxxxxx 235 no I’m just kidding @@@@ 17 236 Mrs. Lewis: ((Mrs. Lewis walks over to the group and starts reading over Charlotte’s shoulder)) I’m reading over you sorry 237 Mia: that’s mine 238 Mrs. Lewis: I know 239 Charlotte: that’s mine@@ ((points to Emma)) 240 Emma: this is mine ((points to Mia)) 241 Mrs. Lewis: how are you—what is your method of switching? 242 Emma: I have a timer 243 Mrs. Lewis: how long? 244 Mia: [five minutes] 245 Emma: [five minutes] 18 246 ((Girls writing quietly.)) 19 247 Mia: xxxxxx I don’t know I’m writing about dances 248 and I’m like xxxxxx 249 ((directed to Emma)) just to let you know her outfit is going to be very weird 250 Emma: ((unintelligible)) 251 M&C: @@ 252 Emma: ((unintelligible)) 20 253 Charlotte: ((Looks mockingly at Mia)) Mr. Fuzzyyyy @ 254 Mia: ((slaps the notebook in Charlotte’s hand in mock anger)) 255 Emma: I’m already judging 256 M&C&E: @@@@@@ 257 Mia: aren’t you always 258 Emma: yeah xxxxxxx 259 Mia: ((points sucker at face of Emma)) I’ll stick this up your- 260 forehead 261 ((Emma jabs her sucker stick quickly at Mia’s head; Mia jabs back; Emma jabs back again.)) 262 Charlotte: uh @@@@@

124

263 Mia: we just went like that ((points her sucker)) xxxxxxxxxxx ((Mia then looks at the camera and points at it.)) 264 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 265 Charlotte: that’s why I was like…((Charlotte starts waving her hands in like in a come on movement)) guys 266 Mia: @@@@ we’re focused @@@ 267 @@@@ we’re focused @@@@@@ 21 268 ((Emma gets up and comes and sits back down and her notebook hit the side of Mia’s face)) 269 Emma: sorry I didn’t mean that @@@@@@@@@@ 22 270 Charlotte: I spelled great wrong and you’re going to have to fix it cuz I’m too lazy ((speaking to Emma)) 23 271 Mia: in your story - are they in middle school? ((speaking to Emma)) 272 Emma: yeah 273 Mia: xxxx be like xxxxx 274 Emma: xxxxx just don’t do that xxxxxx 275 Mia: ((unintelligible)) 276 Emma: ((unintelligible)) 277 Mia: ((unintelligible)) 278 he proposed when he was sixteen 279 Emma: that’s weird 280 Mia: they got married and they’re still married 281 Emma: Mia ((flips her head toward the camera)) 282 Mia: and they’re living a happy life 283 Emma: good for you - I don’t care 284 now - write 285 Mia: ((unintelligible)) 24 286 Charlotte: ((looks at phone timer counting down)) thirty-four seconds 25 287 Mia: do you ever get like spit in the middle of a ring pop ((she is sucking on a sucker, called a ring pop, and pointing at it)) 288 and then you try to get it out 289 Charlotte: what? 290 wait - what did you say? 291 ((unintelligible)) 26 292 Mia: I’m probably gonna xxxx like you Charlotte with the story 293 cuz my story I’ve no xxxxxxxx handwriting so xxxx 294 Charlotte: mine’s good @@@@

125

295 mine’s probably going to be soooooo… 296 finish up your sentences ((Girls switch notebooks for the second time, rotating clockwise.)) 297 Emma: my last sentence was they decided to get on a boat okay 27 298 ((Emma points at Mia)) you need to pull up your shirt 299 is that a xxxxx 300 ((Emma gasps and looks at the camera while Mia shakes her head)) 301 Mia: mm-mm-mm-mm ((while shaking head no)) 302 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@ ((The girls are laughing because Emma thought that Mia accidentally revealed her breasts to the camera.)) 303 Mrs. Lewis: I know you’re having a great time partner writing 304 but try to keep your laughs lower 305 Charlotte: sorry 306 ((looks at Emma)) you’re face is so red@@@ 307 Emma Lane Thomas ((in a mocking, adult-like tone)) 308 Emma: Charlotte Maria Bennett 309 read 28 310 Charlotte: hey this sounds like xxxx @ 311 Emma: this just doesn’t make any sense ((looks at Mia)) 312 M&C: @@ 29 313 Emma: you spelled it wrong twice in a row 314 Charlotte: @@ I know 315 Emma: do you even know how to spell it? 316 Charlotte: yeah- G R E A T 30 317 Mia: ((Looks at Charlotte:)) this story makes no sense at all 318 Emma: I know↑ neither does this @@@ 319 M&C: @@@@@@ 320 Charlotte: @@@@@ neither does this!! 321 Mia: ((Points at Charlotte and the story she started)) that one kinda makes sense 31 322 who wears pink Vans to a dance? 323 Emma: Charlotte probably does 324 or you might actually because you xxxxx 32 325 Charlotte, you end all your stories “and this is (how) the book was about” @@@ 326 Charlotte: I know @@@@ 327 Emma: that’s how she ended this one @@@@ 328 Charlotte: @@@@ ((unintelligible)) 329 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 330 Emma: this is how it went dot dot dot

126

331 M&C: @@@@@@@@@ ((Charlotte places her hand over her mouth)) 332 Charlotte: /@I’m @gonna @do @that @@ 33 333 (h) I need time to write 334 Emma: ((Emma Mimics Charlotte: throws her hands up in the air)) I need time to write 335 Charlotte: I got xxxxxx 336 I’m using xxxxx this is xxxxxxx 337 Charlotte: ((Reaches out, laughs, grabs Emma)) no-oh-ohh 338 Emma: they all died 339 the end 340 Charlotte: no 341 Mia: no-oh /don’t make Mr. Fuzzy die/ @@@ 34 342 Emma: ((looks up at where Mrs. Lewis is sitting)) sorry, we’re talking about our writing 343 Mia: @@ 344 ((looks up at Emma)) @@@ look 35 345 Emma: hey xxxxxx delete that 346 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 347 Emma: erase that 348 Charlotte: ((looking at Mia:’s notebook)) erase that @@ 349 delete it @@ 350 Mia: ((unintelligible)) 351 Charlotte: @@@@@@@@@@ 36 352 ((Girls are writing quietly)) 37 353 Charlotte: @@@@@@@@ 354 ((unintelligible)) 355 Mia: wha-hu-hu-hut? 356 Charlotte: @I @changed his name to @Jimmy John Billy Bob Junior 357 Mia: Charlotte @@@@@ 358 ((looks at Emma:)) you’re so serious xxxxxxx 38 359 we end all the same sentences with an exclamation point 360 and they all died ((Stylized voice - as if it is in quotes; moves hand up to mark exclamation point)) 361 exclamation point @@ 362 the end 363 Charlotte: ((turns page over)) next page @@ 364 Emma: maybe you just writes really big 365 Charlotte: @yeah look at this 39 366 Emma: I forgot to set the timer guys

127

367 Charlotte: @@oo::pps 368 Emma: okay let’s just say we’re done 369 Charlotte: hold on 370 one second 371 are we still writing though? 372 Emma: guys this isn’t supposed to be a true story right? 373 Charlotte: no @ 374 Emma: okay good 375 Charlotte: we’re still writing right? 40 376 okay let’s read this 377 ((Girls switch notebooks again clockwise for the last time and begin reading the start of each story)) 41 378 Robert: could you write your names next to what you wrote? 379 does that make sense? 380 Charlotte: yeah 381 Robert: cuz otherwise xxxxxx 382 thank you 383 Charlotte: ((unintelligible)) 42 384 Mia: ((Reading with her head down)) there were raccoons? 385 Emma: yeah 386 M&C: @@@@@@((Charlotte covers her mouth with hand to try to keep volume of laugh down)) 387 Charlotte: @@ so they got married and had seven children…jeez 388 M&E: @@@@ 43 389 Charlotte: k- can we keep writing now? 390 Emma: yeah just go 391 Charlotte: do you like my part Emma? 392 Emma: I’m not done yet 393 Charlotte: oh 44 394 Mia: so it was super childish 395 silly and childish 396 Charlotte: shut up @@@@@ 397 Mia: just kidding there is no book ((appears to be reading from the notebook)) 398 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@ 399 Emma: that’s my favorite pa- 400 the end - the last sentence is my favorite 401 wait wait 402 Charlotte: @@@@ @just kidding @there’s @@no book” 403 Emma: ((unintelligible)) 404 Charlotte: they all xxxx on their xxxx 405 Emma: and played Mario Kart

128

406 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@ 407 Charlotte: ((unintelligible)) 408 dude you should- 409 Emma: ((Raises her hand in a stopping gesture)) wait just wait for everybody to- listen to her last sentence xxxxxxx 410 Charlotte: @@@@@@@ 411 Mia: what’s that say ((pointing at notebook)) 45 412 Mrs. Lewis: ((Directed to entire class.)) hey guys if you are willing in the next like five minutes 413 I would like - I would love if you would pause and maybe do a little sharing 414 Emma: wanna share? 415 M&E: ((Mia opens mouth wide in mock horror.)) @@@@@@@@@@@ 416 Charlotte: wait can I read it ((points at the notebook in Mia’s lap)) 417 ((Charlotte reaches over and grabs the notebook.)) 418 Mia: Emma! ((as if scolding her for what she wrote)) 419 °wait you do realize we’re going to have to turn this in°? 420 Emma: ((Smiles)) oh well @@ 421 we’re using our imagination ((Emma lifts her left hand up and wiggles it toward her head)) 46 422 Charlotte: oh I just wrote that the parents had to kill one of the kids xxxxxx because they had nothing to eat 423 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@ 424 Emma: just say it - it - 425 xxxxxxx book about it xxxxxxxxxx 426 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@ 427 Mia: I’m guessing the story is over? 428 and they all went to heaven 429 the end 47 430 Charlotte: Nick Nicholas! @@@ 431 Mia: Nick Nicholas! @@@@ @I @said @Abby @Abigail @and @Nick @Nicholas 432 Charlotte: ((unintelligible)) 433 Emma: ((unintelligible)) 434 Charlotte: @@@@@@ 48 435 Emma: I’m not done guys 436 alright this is going to get good 49 437 Charlotte: should we- we should definitely share out our stories 438 M&C: @@@@@@ 439 Charlotte: I want to @@

129

440 Emma: Mia, read yours 441 Mia: I am not reading mine! 442 Charlotte: I’ll read yours 443 Mia: I’ll read it 444 Charlotte: okay 445 Mia: I don’t - I don’t wanna read it but - 446 Charlotte: guys lets share our stories out 447 Mia: okay lets do it 448 Charlotte: Mrs. Lewis is probably going to be like 449 you guys have problems 450 Emma: yeah↑ why are you- 451 Mia: wait should we ask her if we’re allowed to read xxxxxx 452 Emma: wait wait guys shhhhh ((puts her fingers to her lips in silence gesture)) 453 Charlotte: ours are all about killing our children 454 M&C&E: @@@@@@ 455 Emma: mine - this one’s not about killing but it gets good - it gets funny 50 456 Charlotte: ((leans over Mia and begins reading from the notebook she is writing in)) I started xxxx and said just kidding- 457 he ran away under xxxxxxx 458 xxxxxxx started crying so xxxxxx got all over my dress 459 I decided to walk home because he was my ride 460 it was raining and muddy outside- 461 Emma: I’m gonna say a car drove past xxxxx and then xxxxxxxxx 462 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 463 Emma: I fell into a ditch and then I broke my leg 464 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@@ 465 Emma: I need surgery and then I die 466 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 51 467 Mia: I don’t think we- 50 468 Charlotte: ((Charlotte throws her head back laughing.)) @@@ I love it 51 469 Mia: I don’t think we should read any of ours @@@@ 470 Charlotte: I think we should cuz they’re hil- 471 Emma: I think we - shhhhh - I need to read-write 472 Charlotte: Mia yours are the best 473 Emma: I know xxxxxx 52 474 Charlotte: Mrs. Lewis, are we allowed to share our stories?

130

475 Emma: they all xxxxxx dying 476 Charlotte: we all let them die @@ 477 Mrs. Lewis, is it okay that we all let them die @@@ 478 Emma: but they’re all love stories @@ 479 Mrs. Lewis: does it make sense for you to die 480 Charlotte: umm yeah @@ 481 Mia: yeah 482 Emma: not really 483 Mrs. Lewis: it does? 484 Charlotte: yeah mine makes sense ((Said in mock affronted tone)) 485 I mean, they get bankrupt 486 @@@ 487 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@ 53 488 Mrs. Lewis: ((Directed to the entire class.)) okay guys why don’t we - 489 Emma: ((points at her notebook)) let me finish this 490 Mia: yeah 491 Mrs. Lewis: take a little time to come together as a group and do a little bit of sharing out 492 I know that there’s a lot of you - I know Catherine xxxxxxxx so excited - sorry Catherine 493 um a lot of you out there as I peeked in had some really interesting stories 494 so Charlotte why don’t you ahead 495 M&C&E: @@@@ 54 496 Charlotte: okay I’ll read the parts- 497 Mrs. Lewis: can you try to do it without like cracking up and laughing 498 Class: @@@@@@@@@@ 499 Mrs. Lewis: so we can all respond xxxxx 500 Emma: the ending is a little xxxxxxx 501 Mia: [yeah] 502 Charlotte: [yeah] 55 503 Mrs. Lewis: okay so this was a partner write with three people 504 so we’re gonna hear kinda probably different writing styles as well right? 505 Charlotte: yeah 506 I wrote this 56 507 once upon a time there was a village on top of a mountain 508 @@@@ sorry 509 a boy and a girl liked each other wink wink @@

131

510 so one day @they @took a train down the mountain to- @@@@@@@@@@@@@ 57 511 Mrs. Lewis: we gotta be able to xxxxxxx 512 Class: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ 513 Charlotte: I’m sorry I can’t xxxx 58 514 Mrs. Lewis: would you rather me read it aloud? 515 Charlotte: yeah ((Stands up and hands notebook to Mrs. Lewis)) 516 Class: @@@@@@@ 517 Mrs. Lewis: am I going to be surprised by it 518 Charlotte: @NO@@ 519 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 520 Mrs. Lewis: I feel like we’re at your slumber party 521 Mia: no 522 I don’t think we’d do this at a slumber party 523 Mrs. Lewis: °you’re freaking me out° 524 Emma: we xxxxx 525 Charlotte: yeah 59 526 Mrs. Lewis: okay 527 here we go 528 once upon a time 529 there was a village on top of a mountain 530 a boy and a girl liked each other 531 wink wink 532 so one day they took a train down the mountain 533 to the lake 534 they both went on the boat 535 and danced 536 when they were dancing in the breeze 537 they told each other how they felt 538 they both got married 539 Class: @@@@@ 540 Mrs. Lewis: when they were adults they wrote a book about their life 541 the beginning of the book goes… 542 and this is a new writer 543 Charlotte: Mia 544 Mrs. Lewis: it was a wonderful summer day outside 545 and Kyle James decided to go to the lake at the bottom of the mountain he lived on 546 on the other side of the lake sat a girl 547 her name was Lucy Margaret 548 she was beautiful

132

549 Kyle walked over to her and sat beside her 550 they both liked each other very much 551 so they got married 552 Class: @@@@@@@@@@ 553 Mrs. Lewis once they were married 554 they had seven children they named 555 Abby, Abigail, Nick, Nicholas- 556 Charlotte: @@@@xxxxxxxxxx funny 557 Mrs. Lewis: they can’t hear when you’re saying that ((face directed at Charlotte)) 558 Charlotte: sorry @@@ 559 Mrs. Lewis: Violet, Bob, and the youngest Teddy 560 they owned a big house on the mountain 561 the adults eventually became bankrupt 562 and had to kill one of their children to be able to eat 563 Class: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ 564 Student: what?! 565 ((Mrs. Lewis is smiling but also seeming to pretend to look exasperated)) 566 Student: what is wrong with- 567 Mrs. Lewis: so therefore (they killed) Bob 568 Class: @@@@@@@@@@@@ 569 Student: nice job Mia 570 Mia: that wasn’t me - that was - that was Emma ((points her finger at Emma)) 571 ((General class noise, laughter and raised voices)) 60 572 Mrs. Lewis: so everybody take a moment 573 I know 574 the one thing that we need to think about um 575 what do we notice about this story within its development 576 Student: they’re crazy 577 Mrs. Lewis: what did you see 578 Sajal? 579 Sajal: I kinda felt like it went xxxxx they got married ((unintelligible)) they killed their children 580 Mrs. Lewis: so you Sajal were wanting to know more? 581 Sajal: yeah 582 Charlotte: sorry @@@@ 583 Mrs. Lewis: no that’s good feedback

133

584 and that’s something to think about 585 maybe if we had more time to develop it 61 586 um next lets hear - I promised one of our boy groups I would let them share out 62 587 ((Mrs. Lewis lets a few more people share and then the class ends.))

Across the entire event, Mia, Charlotte, and Emma were smiling and giggling, their faces and eyes were expressive and full of delight, they gestured with their hands excitedly, and their body language, in general, connoted excitement and pleasure. During the twenty-three minutes and one second they sat on the floor and wrote (lines 131-487),

I counted sixty-nine separate instances of at least one of them laughing. While laughter was not uncommon in Mrs. Lewis’s class, from observational data and fieldnotes, this event and the amount of laughing the girls engaged in was not typical.

Moving forward, I am going to analyze segments of the transcript to warrant various aspects of Mia, Charlotte, and Emma’s pleasure via the reasons for their laughter.

A common incitement for laughter was the creation and discussion of silly names for their characters. For example:

134

Transcript 16

Weird Character Names in Stories

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 14 219 Charlotte: ((Starts reading Mia’s story outloud.)) “One day Tom and Carol…” 220 Mia: ((Raises her hand to stop Charlotte from reading.)) @@ - I have really weird names 221 ((raises head and looks at Emma)) ahh (whispered) 222 Emma: ((unintelligible)) 15 223 Charlotte: ((reaches over taps the phone they are using to time their writing)) okay we need to start 16 224 Emma: T H E I R not ((unintelligible)) 17 225 Mia: oh wait I don’t know what to do 226 ((looks at Emma)) so wait is this at the dance? 227 are they at the dance right now? 228 Emma: yeah 229 the next xxxxxx 15 230 Charlotte: ((points at Emma and the phone)) Here you need to start the time right now 14 231 ((places finger on lips smirking)) Mr. Fuzzy??? 232 Mia: Shut up @@@@@ 233 Charlotte: @@@@@

The girls share another laugh (the third) about Mia’s character, Mr. Fuzzy (lines 253-

254), a fourth about Charlotte’s character, Jimmy John Billy Bob Junior (lines 356-357), and a fifth about Mia’s set of silly names: “Nick, Nicholas, Abby, Abigail, Violet, Bob, and Teddy” (lines 431-434, 555-559). The use of silly names when writing stories was something that I observed across all three years of the study, as was the use of (or a play off of) classmates’ names and/or famous peoples’ names, especially boy band members.

Silly names may also violate social norms around what is or is not considered a “good” name. Especially in English language arts, silly names violate the seriousness of literature proper. For example, if Atticus Fitch from To Kill a Mockingbird (Lee, 1960) were

135

named Professor Pippy Pee-Pee Poppypants, from the Captain Underpants series (Pilky,

2000), I suspect it would no longer be taught in schools. In other words, there is a bit of

Bakthinian (1980) carnival in students’ uses of silly names.

The second aspect of Mia, Charlotte, and Emma’s pleasure was transgressive in nature. For example, after Charlotte waved her hand in the air and excitedly started writing, Emma pointed at her and asked Mia, “What the fuck?” (163-167). All three laughed loudly; some of this laughter can certainly be attributed to Emma calling out

Charlotte for being excited about writing, but I argue that Emma’s curse word is the main culprit. In classrooms across the United States, a common type of transgressive laughter is after students get reprimanded by a teacher; in this case, see lines 342-343. Below is a segment that was funny to the girls due to its implied sexual nature and the proximity of the camera.

136

Transcript 17

Transgressive Laughter

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 27 298 ((Emma points at Mia)) you need to pull up your shirt 299 is that a xxxxx 300 ((Emma gasps and looks at the camera while Mia shakes her head)) 301 Mia: mm-mm-mm-mm ((while shaking head no)) 302 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@ ((The girls are laughing because Emma thought that Mia accidentally revealed her breast to the camera.)) 303 Mrs. Lewis: I know you’re having a great time partner writing 304 but try to keep your laughs lower 305 Charlotte: sorry 306 ((looks at Emma)) you’re face is so red@@@

Here, Emma told Mia that her shirt was too low, with the implication she might accidentally reveal her breasts; as Mia pulled up her shirt, Emma thinks that she did reveal them to the camera (note that she did not). Mia rebutted this, shaking her head no, but the idea that Mia might have revealed her breasts, not only in class but onto a video recording had taken hold, and the three of them laughed very loudly for an extended period of time, eventually requiring Mrs. Lewis step in to calm them down. While this example does not deal directly with their writing, Mrs. Lewis’s comment indicates that she as well noticed the enjoyment that Mia, Charlotte, and Emma were experiencing, further warranting their pleasure. Here, Mrs. Lewis not only notes that they are “having a great time partner writing” (line 303), but she additionally evidences the high volume of their laughter (line 304).

137

The most common reason for their laughter, however, were the stories themselves.

These laughs happened primarily after the girls switched notebooks and read through the story in front of them so as to begin their own part writing the story. The laughter also got more common as the event progressed. This is partly because at the beginning of the event they had not yet written their stories; however, it also appears to stem from the fact that the girls really enjoyed their endings:

Transcript 18

Story Endings

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 49 452 Emma: wait wait guys shhhhh ((puts her fingers to her lips in silence gesture)) 453 Charlotte: ours are all about killing our children 454 M&C&E: @@@@@@ 455 Emma: mine - this one’s not about killing but it gets good - it gets funny 50 456 Charlotte: ((leans over Mia and begins reading from the notebook she is writing in)) I started xxxx and said just kidding- 457 he ran away under xxxxxxx 458 xxxxxxx started crying so xxxxxx got all over my dress 459 I decided to walk home because he was my ride 460 it was raining and muddy outside- 461 Emma: I’m gonna say a car drove past xxxxx and then xxxxxxxxx 462 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 463 Emma: I fell into a ditch and then I broke my leg 464 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @@@@@@@@ 465 Emma: I need surgery and then I die 466 M&C&E: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 51 467 Mia: I don’t think we- 50 468 Charlotte: ((Charlotte throws her head back laughing.)) @@@ I love it

138

In Transcript 18, the transgressive nature of their pleasure is visible. However, in addition to filicide (killing one’s children), part of their pleasure is from the upheaval of generic conventions, especially as they concern “love stories” (line 155). Traditional love stories are “supposed” to end happily ever after, so the girls find it funny that their stories end with death and destruction. They also appear to be challenging traditional gender roles in that the boys in class were known to end their stories violently, not the girls. However, I use the transcript above to highlight not only their pleasure, but also the infectious way the girls collectively constructed their endings. To clarify this point: after Charlotte claims that their stories are all about killing their children, Emma says hers is not.

Charlotte then begins reading what Emma just wrote and then Emma, caught up in the moment, starts composing out loud her last few sentences. In her ending, the character falls into a ditch, breaks her leg, goes to the hospital for surgery and then she dies.

Although it cannot be proven that Emma was not planning that ending initially, I strongly suspect that Charlotte and Mia’s endings, along with their laughter about them, impacted how Emma said she was going to finish her story. In part, I suspect this because Emma was a relatively serious girl and was not known for being silly. But whether she composed this ending on the fly or had decided upon it a few minutes previously matters little—she was nevertheless influenced by Mia and Charlotte’s stories, and ending with death in a hospital or ending your story by killing one of your children is a matter of degree, especially when compared to the typical happily ever after ending.

The last aspect of the girls’ pleasure that I want to discuss is the fact that Mrs.

Lewis carved out ten minutes at the end of class to share their stories (line 413). I argue

139

that providing this opportunity to read their stories publically was a major driver of their pleasure. And while only Charlotte ended up sharing her story to the class, the structure of the partner write meant that all three of the girls’ writing was shared. Moreover, the presence of the “share out” gave a heightened intensity to the girls’ pleasure and their composition; that is, because they knew they might have to share, not only did they increase their writing effort and intensity, they knew each line they wrote could potentially be made public—things that were pleasurable and funny during their partner write take on increased importance and thus become more pleasurable and funny.

Transcript 19, below, occurs at the end of class; after Charlotte started to read her story, she fell into a fit of laughter and Mrs. Lewis had to take over (lines 507-527):

140

Transcript 19

Charlotte’s Love Story

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 59 528 Mrs. Lewis: once upon a time 529 there was a village on top of a mountain 530 a boy and a girl liked each other 531 wink wink 532 so one day they took a train down the mountain 533 to the lake 534 they both went on the boat 535 and danced 536 when they were dancing in the breeze 537 they told each other how they felt 538 they both got married 539 Class: @@@@@ 540 Mrs. Lewis: when they were adults they wrote a book about their life 541 the beginning of the book goes… 542 and this is a new writer 543 Charlotte: Mia 544 Mrs. Lewis: it was a wonderful summer day outside 545 and Kyle James decided to go to the lake at the bottom of the mountain he lived on 546 on the other side of the lake sat a girl 547 her name was Lucy Margaret 548 she was beautiful 549 Kyle walked over to her and sat beside her 550 they both liked each other very much 551 so they got married 552 Class: @@@@@@@@@@ 553 Mrs. Lewis once they were married 554 they had seven children they named 555 Abby, Abigail, Nick, Nicholas- 556 Charlotte: @@@@xxxxxxxxxx funny 557 Mrs. Lewis: they can’t hear when you’re saying that ((face directed at Charlotte)) 558 Charlotte: sorry @@@ 559 Mrs. Lewis: Violet, Bob, and the youngest Teddy 560 they owned a big house on the mountain 561 the adults eventually became bankrupt 562 and had to kill one of their children to be able to eat

141

563 Class: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 564 Student: what?! 565 ((Mrs. Lewis is smiling but also seeming to pretend to look exasperated)) 566 Student: what is wrong with- 567 Mrs. Lewis: so therefore (they killed) Bob 568 Class: @@@@@@@@@@@@

This transcript cements the pleasure the girls’ received from this writing assignment by publically sharing their story with an audience that laughed with them. According to the laughter from the class, the funniest part of the story was when the two lovers, Lucy and

Kyle, became bankrupt and in order to eat they had to kill one of their children. Line 567 is the last line of the story and while the video recording is muffled, contextualization cues suggest that it should read, “So therefore (“they killed” or “they ate”) Bob. Again, it should be noted that while the ending alone may be considered humorous, it is primarily the juxtaposition of the beginning, “Once upon a time” (ln. 528), along with the fact that it was a love story, that makes the brutal and out-of-place ending humorous.

Refining pleasure. While the construct of pleasure as manifested in this case was not necessarily academically challenging, reconceptualizing pleasure as central to researching teaching and learning events is crucial. Within the Western academic tradition pleasure has generally been disparaged (cf. Barthes, 1973/1975; 1975/1994;

Bakhtin, 1963/1984a). Socially inscribed sexual and bodily prohibitions, perhaps best exemplified in religious and moral codes, but also seen through policing actions, contributed to the anti-pleasure legacy (cf. Foucault, 1984/1990). The repudiation of pleasure can be perhaps best seen through cultural theorists who use this line of reasoning to argue for social change (e.g. Horkheimer & Adorno, 1944/2002; Adorno, 1991).

142

Discussing this bias, Barthes (1973/1975) writes, “No sooner has a word been said, somewhere, about the pleasure of the text, than two policemen are ready to jump on you: the political policeman and the psychoanalytical policeman: futility and/or guilt, pleasure is either idle or vain, a class notion or an illusion” (p. 36).

Educational research tends to consider only the logical side of schooling and forget that students’ (and teachers’) emotional responses to what they do in school are as critical as the pedagogic steps that have led them to any particular learning event.

According to Barthes (1973/1975), pleasure is central to any study of texts, and therefore its absence in literacy studies is problematic; moreover, as language is central to learning, the education field as a whole needs to highlight the condition of pleasure. Analogous to

Žižek’s (2002) argument that current political theories do not take adequately into account pleasure, I argue that literacy research must be on the forefront of reconceptualizing pleasure as central to learning events.

Beyond increasing the visibility of the condition of pleasure, these findings refine the current construct of pleasure through the following discussion of laughter and its import in the manifestation of this condition. In their writing event, Mia, Charlotte, and

Emma evidenced their pleasure in part through laughter. In this case, one would think that this laughter is a good sign. However, in the classroom, laughter is often conceptualized as being of poor behavior. Teachers will often provide students verbal or nonverbal (e.g. a glance) signals to stop laughing. For example, in during the writing event, Mrs. Lewis inserted herself three times into the girls’ writing to get them to stop laughing (lines 191-192, 303-304, 341-342). In short, laughter is not encouraged in

143

education. Commenting on this, Lewis (2010) argues that this cold-shouldering of laughter is misguided and he builds on Freire to posit laughter as not only critical to pedagogy but potentially emancipatory. In an interview with Gadotti (1994), Freire asserts that his work forwards “a pedagogy of contentment” (p. 154), “a pedagogy of happiness….a pedagogy of laughter, of questioning, of curiosity, of seeing the future through the present, a pedagogy that believes in the possibility of the transformation of the world” (p. 160). Lewis (2010) writes:

Critically transformative laughing is a violently non-violent weapon of democracy

that opens a new space of disidentification and dissensus with the given social

allotment of roles and identities typified by educational standardization through a

semiotic excess. The laugh is a threshold between sound and signification,

between animal phone and human logos. Within the moment of hysterical

upheaval that destabilizes classroom etiquette (what kinds of interactions are

legitimate) and power (who is qualified to speak) there exists an aesthetic kernel

that creates, as Rancière puts it, ‘uncertain communities that contribute to the

formation of enunciative collectives that call into question the distribution of

roles, territories, and languages’ (2006b, p. 40). (Lewis, 2010, p. 642)

Dissensus, from the work of Rancière (2010), is the idea of a rupture in the police order that occurs when social roles are inverted and there is a moment of equality in or during social relations. For example, in the excerpt below, as Mrs. Lewis is finishing the girls’ story to the class, the class erupted in laughter (line 563) after finding out one of the children had to be eaten.

144

Transcript 20

Cannibalism

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 59 561 Mrs. the adults eventually became bankrupt Lewis: 562 and had to kill one of their children to be able to eat 563 Class: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 564 Student: what?! 565 ((Mrs. Lewis is smiling but also seeming to pretend to look exasperated)) 566 Student: what is wrong with- 567 Mrs. so therefore (they killed) Bob Lewis: 568 Class: @@@@@@@@@@@@

Cannibalism is certainly one of those topics that is generally not school-sanctioned, but in

Transcript 20, Mrs. Lewis evidences signs of dissensus in her ambivalent reaction. By this, I mean that her facial expression showed mock exasperation. As the teacher, she was required to frown on such behavior; however, in a moment of equality, Mrs. Lewis smiles and joins in the carnival.

The idea of laughter as upending traditional social order has been alternatively theorized through Bakhtin’s (1965/1984b) notion of carnival. Here, Bakhtin reveals the importance of laughter in subverting the social order. As opposed to satire, Bakhtin describes “festive” carnival laughter as “the laughter of all the people….express[ing] the point of view of the whole world; he [sic] who is laughing also belongs to it”

(1965/1984b, p. 11-12). He writes:

Only dogmatic and authoritarian cultures are one-sidedly serious. Violence does

not know laughter….Seriousness burdens us with hopeless situations, but laughter

145

lifts us above them and delivers us from them. Laughter does not encumber man

[sic], it liberates him. The social, choral nature of laughter, its striving to pervade

all peoples and the entire world. The doors of laughter are open to one and

all….Everything that is truly great must include an element of laughter. Otherwise

it becomes threatening, terrible, or pompous….The joyful, open, festive laugh.

The closed, purely negative, satirical laugh. This is not a laughing laugh. The

Gogolian laugh is joyful. Laughter and freedom. Laughter and equality. (Bakhtin,

1986, p. 134-135).

In this passage, from Speech genres and other late essays (1986), Bakhtin makes clear the importance he places on laughter. Common to both Bakthin and Freire is the central point that laughter is an excess of sorts—a gap in the normal order—that has political potential. In other words, laughter is not only a symptom of pleasurable experiences, but it holds the potential to alter the existing social order. In this case study, upheaval can be seen when Mrs. Lewis begins laughing along with the class (ln. 563-565). This “choral” laughter denotes a shared floor by the participants and highlights the carnival aspect that

Bakhtin theorizes.

In conclusion, I suggest refining the current construct of pleasure by viewing it as central to education. Additionally, the construct of pleasure must build on laughter— especially within classroom research, as laughter is an important indicator of pleasure.

Finally, I argue that part of what educational researchers must do is investigate the emancipatory potential of pleasure via theories of laughter and carnival.

146

Jouissance

The fourth section is a case study of the condition of jouissance that occurred during a graphic novel unit at the end of the second year of the study. The case study primarily analyzes the first conversation Angie had about the graphic novel, Chopsticks

(Anthony & Corral, 2012), with her two teachers, Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis. The conversation was a fifteen-minute heated dialogue in the front of the class while the rest of the students were working on graphic novel worksheets in which the three discussed various interpretations of the book. Towards the end of the conversation, Angie figured out that the protagonist’s boyfriend is a figment of her imagination and this changes the entire interpretation of what happened in the book. In her excitement, Angie twice uttered, “Ohhh….BOOOM!!!!” and jumped up and down. I use microethnographic discourse analysis to analyze this conversation and to discuss the various ways all three of the interlocutors, but in particular Angie, exhibited signs of jouissance. I also follow

Angie, Ravna, and Oliva, who after this first conversation, went on to form a group dedicated to interpreting Chopsticks. I define jouissance as evident in moments when students and/or teachers are viscerally and intellectually ecstatic about a text or during textual interactions.

As discussed in Chapter 3, during year two, Mrs. Green and Lewis co-taught their classes together. Neither teacher had used graphic novels in class before, so it was a learning experience for them as well as the students. They planned the graphic novel unit by bringing in three complementary pieces: individual readings of graphic novels, shared class readings of a graphic novel, and the student writing of a graphic novel overviewing

147

the student’s year. After a brief lesson on how to read graphic novels, the teachers took a field trip to the local library to provide students an opportunity to pick a graphic novel of their choice. Supplementing the library’s choices, Mrs. Lewis bought approximately twenty graphic novels using a small grant provided by the district. Over the first few days of the unit, students were given an opportunity to sample the graphic novels made available and then decide on one; after they chose a graphic novel, students were grouped together by similarities in their choice of graphic novels and then participated in discussing and reviewing their novels with each other. Alongside this, the teachers both selected a graphic novel that they read over an ELMO projector to the students. In her classroom, Mrs. Green read Bad Island (Ten Napel, 2013), centered on a teenage boy’s initial reluctance at being forced into a family camping trip with his family and their subsequent adventure battling aliens on a “bad” island; Mrs. Lewis read Page by Paige

(Gulledge, 2011), which relayed Paige’s romance with Gabe through her diary and art work. Students chose one or the other and collectively read and discussed their book across the course of the unit. During the first half of this unit, students worked with a partner and created a short comic strip that creatively explained an assigned vocabulary word as well as working with their literature circle groups converting a short story they had read into a graphic novel; during the second half of the unit, students developed, drafted, and revised an eight to twelve pane graphic novel that narrativized an important event or series of events about themselves as students or individuals during their seventh- grade year. Table 11, below, overviews the unit.

148

Table 11

Graphic Novel Unit Overview and Observation Schedule

Date Overview of Lesson Wednesday Mrs. Green and Lewis explain the graphic novel unit and give a 05/07/14 short presentation on the two books they are collectively reading: Bad Island and Page by Paige. Student who chose Bad Island followed Mrs. Green into her room to begin reading; students reading Page by Paige stayed in Mrs. Lewis’s room. After lunch, both classes stay in Lewis’s room and sample graphic novels. Angie converses with Mrs. Green and Lewis about the graphic novel Chopsticks. Thursday 05/08/14 Field trip to local library to pick out graphic novels; students packed lunch and ate outside the library. I was not able to observe this day. Friday 05/09/14 Independent reading of individual graphic novels; collective reading of Page by Paige and Bad Island. Monday 05/12/14 Students read their independent graphic novels and complete a writing assignment about them; they additionally participate in graphic novel literature circles. Wednesday Students work in their literature circle groups, writing and drawing 05/14/14 a group graphic novel of a short story they all read. Monday 05/19/14 Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis explain the graphic novel assignment that the students are going to be writing; students brainstorm and read their respective collective graphic novels. Tuesday 05/20/14 Independent reading and/or working on graphic novels; Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis conduct writing conferences. Thursday 05/22/14 Collective reading of graphic novels and workshop time to write graphic novels. Friday 05/23/14 Workshop time to write graphic novels. Students are grouped with their literature circle and spend the class writing and drawing with colored pencils. Tuesday 05/27/14 Workshop time to write graphic novels. Students are grouped with their literature circle and spend the class writing and drawing with colored pencils. Wednesday Students share and present their graphic novels. Unit ends. 05/28/14

149

Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis chose the genre of graphic novels in an effort to appeal to their students. Students also had a lot of choice in picking out their books: they were able to choose between Bad Island and Page by Paige, and they had far more latitude in choosing their independent book to read, even getting the opportunity to walk to the local library and check out books. Returning to the collective readings of Bad

Island and Page by Paige, this facet was instructionally key as it gave students appropriate scaffolding by modeling different reading strategies unique to the genre as well as providing a sense of community. During the collective readings, Mrs. Green and

Mrs. Lewis repeatedly commented that they themselves were not familiar with the genre and because of this, they had to rely on the “experienced” graphic novel readers in the audience. Although this was likely more of a teacherly move than an real plea for help, it often had the desired result: students were eager to share their understanding of the genre and propose interpretations about the plot, character’s emotions, allusions, foreshadowing, etc.

Angie, a thirteen-year-old white female, Ravna, a thirteen-year-old white female, and Olivia, also a thirteen-year-old white female, were placed into a group due to their fascination with Chopsticks. Their group was not typical in that the rest of the students were all reading different graphic novels, even within their literature circle groups.

However, Mrs. Green and Lewis noticed the excitement with which the girls were reading and discussing the various interpretations of Chopsticks and decided to let them form their own group. This shows that Mrs. Green and Lewis were not opposed to changing their plans, but instead, would work to match their plans and assignments to

150

their students’ interests and skill levels. Angie and Ravna, in Mrs. Green’s class, were close friends; Olivia was in Mrs. Lewis’s class and was in the more popular social circle of girls—she was not close friends with Angie or Ravna, but they all knew each other and worked well together.

Chopsticks, a scrapbook-like collection of pictures, images, letters, and memorabilia, tells the love story of Glory, a teenage piano prodigy, and Frank, her next- door neighbor who had just moved to New York City from Argentina. The first few pages complicate this storyline, foreshadowing Glory’s disappearance at the end of the novel. Chopsticks then backs up and begins with her parents’ romance, their marriage, her birth, her mother’s death in a motorcycle accident, Glory’s own rise as a world- famous pianist, her admittance into Golden Hands Rest Facility, ostensibly a psychiatric rest home where she played the song “Chopsticks” for hours and hours every day, and wraps back around to document her escape from the psychiatric rest home and her disappearance. Chopsticks is essentially a detective-like mystery, where readers have to use evidence within the text to try to figure out where Glory disappeared to—did she follow Frank to Argentina? did she disappear to play piano on cruise ships circling the globe? did she commit suicide? was she abducted? did she go insane? etc.

On the second day of the unit, Wednesday, May 7th, 2014, at 11:20 a.m., students from both Mrs. Green and Lewis’s classes rumbled back from lunch into Mrs. Lewis’s room. On each of the tables there were piled the graphic novels that she had purchased through a small grant from the school’s language arts department. Their directions were to pick a graphic novel, read it for an allotted time period and write down, on the

151

worksheet provided, the book’s title, specific genre (e.g. fantasy graphic novel), comment on the text (e.g. “the gist seems to be…”), and finish this sentence: “Readers might like this graphic novel if they enjoy…”. Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis started talking quietly at the front of the room about a graphic novel, Chopsticks (Anthony & Corral, 2012), that they had both just read. As their discussion winds down, Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis concluded that they did not understand the book and determined that they needed help.

Asking the class if anyone else had read the book, Angie raised her hand and the three proceeded to have a fifteen-minute conversation at the front of the room while the rest of the class continued sampling graphic novels. The conversation began in the traditional

Initiation-Response-Evaluation (I-R-E) participation structure, but quickly shifted to a more egalitarian structure as Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis looked to Angie for validation of their proposals. As their conversation moved forward, it increased in intensity and volume and the three interlocutors began to evidence more and more excitement and appeared less and less aware of the other 47 students in the room. Apologizing to the rest of the students at the end of class for ignoring them, Mrs. Lewis said that she was “sorry, but we [were] just totally engrossed” (lines 571-574 in Transcript 25, below).

This section is organized as follows: first, Table 12 summarizes interactional units

1-18; adapting the theoretical and methodological constructs of participation structures

(cf., Phillips, 1972; Shultz, Florio, & Erickson, 1982) and the social construction of intertextuality (cf., Bloome and Egan-Robertson), Table 12 also comments on the primary speaker, their proposals, and the uptakes, modifications, validations, or dis- validations of the proposals from interaction units 1-18 (cf. Appendix D for full transcript

152

and corresponding line numbers). The remainder of the event is detailed in Transcript 21, analyzed, and discussed.

Table 12

Interactional Units 1-19: Summary and Comments on Interpretive Proposals

I.U. Lines Summary Commentary 1 1-8 David asks Mrs. Green if he can Mrs. Green’s “no” (line 3) appeared read Chopsticks, which she is to take David by surprise, and he holding in her hands. She replies replied, “You want to read it?” “no” because she needed to figure Whether she noticed David’s the ending out. surprise or was simply explaining her decision, the interaction nevertheless suggests two insights: the first is that Mrs. Green’s social identity was one of authority and in David’s perceived role of her as his language arts teacher, he is surprised that she cannot figure out an adolescent graphic novel; the second insight is that Mrs. Green herself does not shy away from highlighting her reading comprehension struggle, and this has a lead by example power to it. 2 9-44 Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis discuss one of the last pages in the book: this page shows a classifieds ad for a piano position on a cruise ship line. Also on the page is a cruise ship ticket stub with Glory’s name on it dated December 6th, 2009. Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis determine that the date of Glory’s disappearance at the beginning of the book match, as Glory escaped from Golden Hands Rest Facility on the 5th of December, 2009. 3 45-59 Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis

153

discuss who circled the classified ads and whether Glory or Frank wrote, “Remember what our love is. We will take root again.” 4 60-75 Mrs. Lewis points to a picture on Although their admission of being the third-to-last page of the book puzzled was not public, it again of the ocean and a setting or rising evidences Mrs. Green and Mrs. sun, saying that it makes her think Lewis’s difficulty interpreting the about heaven. Mrs. Green book and it shows that neither counters with the fact that it could appear wary of sharing such also be a scene from a cruise ship. information. Green then asks why there is not a picture with both Frank and Glory on the ship. They close this interactional unit by agreeing that they are both very puzzled. 5 76-79 Mrs. Green asks if the author has Their interest in the author(s) written any other books. Mrs. evidences their interest and Lewis replies that she doesn’t engrossment in the book. know, but that that she will look it up on her phone. 6 80-83 As Mrs. Lewis is typing on her phone, Mrs. Green is reading the back cover of the book, which closes its overview by telling the reader that “we must decide what is real, what is imagined, and what has been madness all along.” Mrs. Green laments this line, telling Mrs. Lewis that it “leaves every possibility open.” 7 84- Mrs. Green addresses the class, Again the issue of power is raised: in 104 asking if anyone had read this case, Mrs. Green publically Chopsticks. She eventually admitting that she and Mrs. Lewis determines that Angie had read wanted help to understand most of it. Mrs. Green approaches Chopsticks is evidence of their own Angie and asks her if she can vulnerabilities and that they trust finish reading it, because “Mrs. their students as intelligent and Lewis and I are very much trying potentially helpful allies. to figure out the ending….selfishly, we want to have someone to talk to about it because we keep going back and forth and can’t decide.”

154

8 105 Angie reads the rest of Mrs. Green, Mrs. Lewis, and Chopsticks, gets up from her desk Angie’s body positioning is of social and walks toward Mrs. Green, significance; they are turned inward telling her she is finished. Mrs. at the front of class, focused on each Green directs Angie to the front of other and ignoring the other students the room where all three huddle in the room. together. 9 106- Mrs. Lewis asks Angie what she Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Green begin 142 thinks happened. Angie replies their conversation with Angie in a that the date on the cruise ship traditional I-R-E (initiation- ticket and the police evidence response-evaluation) participation bags are the same, so Glory structure. Angie establishes an initial escaped from Golden Hands and interpretive floor with two possible fled to Argentina with Frank. Mrs. hypotheses: Glory escaped to Green counters that she and Mrs. Argentina or, from Mrs. Green, she Lewis think Glory might have died. died. 10 143- Mrs. Green argues that because Mrs. Green’s proposal (unstated) is 151 Glory escaped Golden Hands that the boxing robe in a police wearing a boxing robe and that evidence bag suggests her body was the same boxing robe is seen in found elsewhere, thus Glory police evidence bags, it makes committed suicide. The social more sense if Glory committed significance of this proposal is suicide. Angie disputes this and unclear as Angie disputes it and Mrs. says that Glory discarded the robe Lewis does not comment on it. on purpose. 11 152- Mrs. Lewis switches topics and Mrs. Lewis cites an email from a 169 proposes the idea that Glory’s friend of Glory’s father’s that mother did not die in a motorcycle suggests there are similarities in how accident, as the book suggests, but he, Victor, lost his wife and how he rather had similar mental health was losing Glory. Mrs. Lewis’s issues to Glory. proposal is considered and validated as a potential interpretation. 12 170- Mrs. Green mentions that part of Mrs. Green cites the back of the 186 the reason Glory is in Golden book and part of its summary. The Hands is because she plays the text reads, “Before long, Glory is waltz, “Chopsticks”, obsessively. unable to play anything but the song Mrs. Green then cites the back of “Chopsticks”; F and G notes moving the book and its note that the closer together, and farther apart.” dominant piano keys used for The proposal is considered of import chopsticks are F and G – which and validated as a potential corresponds to Frank and Glory interpretation. and is additionally how they sign off on notes, emails, and chats to

155

each other. 13 187- Mrs. Green points to a picture of Mrs. Green began this interactional 225 Glory in Golden Hands knitting; unit using the I-R-E participation Green says that the piece of yarn structure, but between lines 192 and Glory has is very thick and could 199 she changes course and frames have been used to commit suicide. her own confusion around a question for Angie. Proposal on the possibility of the string’s importance recognized as significant. 14 226- Mrs. Green turns the page to a To whom Mrs. Lewis’s question is 235 picture of flowers in a field with a to is unclear. Additionally, the Golden Hands’ intercom evaluation of Angie’s proposal came announcement written over the from Mrs. Green. Both proposals are picture, requesting that all staff acknowledged, recognized, and members report to the office. Mrs. determined to be significant possible Green had argued that this page interpretations. symbolized Glory’s suicide, but Angie suggests that it is the field through which Glory had to run during her escape from Golden Hands. 15 236- Responding to Mrs. Green’s The last eight pages of Chopsticks 281 proposal, Angie proposes that the include a picture of wine bottles in a picture of the flowers signify breakfast nook of a house, a bottle of Glory’s break with reality, and wine from Frank named Francisco, a that the rest of the book, including picture of the open ocean and the Frank and Glory’s trip to setting or rising sun, Frank and Argentina and their new life there Glory at a diner, and a field of white together, are all in Glory’s dandelions. Both Mrs. Green and imagination – in her Lewis positively take up the “wonderland” (line 241; cf. proposal that the end of the novel is Appendix D). Glory’s “wonderland”. The participation structure shift foreshadowed in Unit 14 appears more forcefully, with interlocutors sharing the same floor and often overlapping each others’ speech. This roughly corresponds with Shultz, Florio, & Erickson’s (1982) Type III participation structure. 16 282- Mrs. Lewis summarizes her Relaying the narrative of her 310 proposal from interactional unit 4 proposal in interactional unit 4, Mrs. (with Mrs. Green) that the last Lewis proposes that the last few few pages of the book symbolize pages of the text symbolize heaven.

156

heaven. Angie modifies her The picture of Frank and Glory at “wonderland” proposal and the diner is sandwiched between the acknowledges that the last few setting or rising sun and the field of pages could be either in Glory’s white dandelions. Angie’s imagination or literally her wonderland proposal from wonderland in heaven. interactional unit 15 is modified to acknowledge that the last few pages could be either in Glory’s imagination or literally her wonderland in heaven. Both Mrs. Lewis and Angie’s proposals are considered significant. 17 311- Mrs. Green appears to elaborate Here Mrs. Green is repeating and/or 337 on Mrs. Lewis’s heaven theory, elaborating on Mrs. Lewis proposal but the lack of backchanneling in interactional unit 16. Elaboration and Lewis’s response of “maybe” proposal is not taken up. (line 337) with its falling intonation suggests this proposal was ignored. 18 338- Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Green Although Mrs. Lewis was the 387 compare and contrast handwriting primary proposer of this evidence samples and determine that one of gathering interaction, there appears the notes that was supposedly collective “will” being formed. The written by Frank is actually in evidence is acknowledged as Glory’s handwriting. significant but not taken up further.

After dismissing David’s request to read Chopsticks (interactional unit 1), Mrs.

Green and Mrs. Lewis began talking about the book and moved to the front of the room.

During interactional units 1-6, before they asked Angie to finish reading the book, they engaged in a discussion around the ending to Chopsticks. Not only were they asking each other questions and providing potential interpretations, they were also putting their own reading and interpretive processes into the public sphere within the classroom. Regarding their conversation, their admitted failure to understand the book, and the engrossment and excitement they evidence about Chopsticks, it should be noted that this at least partly stems from the fact that neither of them had read the book before; to some extent, their

157

position of not knowing was a prerequisite for their dialogue. Had their discussion revolved around Shakespeare, for instance, it would have taken on a different tone altogether (and not just topically) due to their social identities as language arts teachers, where a thorough understanding (or procedural display) of Shakespeare is perceived as necessary. But it is precisely this rupture that brings to the surface underlying beliefs about what counted as reading comprehension: according to Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis, reading was a process of proposing potential interpretations and looking for evidence to back those interpretations up.

After agreeing that they were both “just puzzled” (line 74), Mrs. Green asked the class whether anyone had read Chopsticks yet. Angie responded that she had read most of it and so Mrs. Green asked her to finish reading. At 28:53 minutes into the class period

Angie stood up from her table and walked toward Mrs. Green. Initially surprised that

Angie had finished reading, she recalled that Angie had read most of it the previous day.

Mrs. Green directed Angie toward the front of the room where Mrs. Lewis was sitting on a stool. During their conversation, the three participants huddled together at the front of the room, indicating their collective experience while simultaneously distancing themselves from the rest of the class: they used the open space at the front of the room to congregate, Angie and Mrs. Green faced the wall to “ignore” the other students and create solidarity among themselves.

158

Figure 12. Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s Positioning in Classroom

Figure 13. Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s Positioning in Classroom “Picture”

159

Interactional unit 9 stemmed from Mrs. Lewis and Green’s request that Angie explain her interpretation of the graphic novel’s ending (lines 112-114). Angie responded with her proposal that Glory escaped from Golden Hands and fled to Argentina with

Frank (lines 116-118). Mrs. Green’s “umhum” suggests a recognition of Angie’s proposal, and her revoicing (121-126) along with her and Mrs. Lewis’s previous conversation confirm the social significance of the proposal. Interactions 9 and 10 display an I-R-E (teacher initiation/question—student response—teacher evaluation or feedback;

I-R-F) participation structure common in school settings and in reading comprehension discussions. Interactional unit 11 is similar: although the first line was a dropped statement, it suggests a bid for the floor with a preamble of sorts: Mrs. Lewis’s falling intonation hints at her contemplation on how to best approach her line of questioning

(lines 152-155). Again, Angie’s prompt response indicates their shared understanding of this participation structure. Ignoring I-R-E’s pedagogical implications at this time, I want to instead turn our attention to how it influences contextual identities, the social realm and its power dynamics, and, through its initial gatekeeping role and/or its evaluative function, controls what counts as knowledge in the classroom. Entering into their discussion, the interlocutors relied upon the I-R-E sequence to establish a working consensus on how their conversation would unfold; Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis wore their teacher identities and Angie was content to answer their questions.

Mrs. Green’s question about Glory’s robe, which Glory wears during her escape from Golden Hands and then discards and which is found by the police at her house, and

Mrs. Lewis’s question about the motorcycle accident were both Socratic lines of

160

questioning and ways to propose topics for their conversational floor. In other words,

Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis asked questions they thought they already knew the answers to. These leading questions are also common in teacher/student interactions and dialogue.

It is interesting to note that while at this time, they are positioning themselves as teachers, their initial request that Angie finish reading Chopsticks (Interactional unit 7) implies a genuine desire to dialogue with her.

The I-R-E structure began to shift in Interactional Unit 13, when Mrs. Green’s attempt to question Angie was modified into an admission of not understanding and shehesitantly framed her proposal as a question (lines 191-199). It must be noted that while this participation structure appears to be similar to the teacher-led question fronting

I-R-E interactions, there is no longer an omniscient evaluator, and the task of knowledge generation and the right to evaluate no longer rest with the teacher but with the group as a collective. A new participation structure began to emerge, beginning with “wonderingv” or “maybe” proposals (i.e. “I wonder if X might have happened” or “maybe X occurred”), followed by the interlocutors’ acknowledgement or modification of said proposal, and finally, clarification or extension of the proposal and its impact on the interpretation of Chopsticks. Interactional units 14 and 15 further emphasize the shift in participation structure as Angie offered her first proposal since they asked her about the ending at the start of their conversation. However, unlike the traditional I-R-E sequence in interactional unit 9, here Angie answered and elaborated from a question that was not directly addressed to her. In other words, Angie was gaining power within the group: her voice was now equal to that of her teachers.

161

Transcript 21

Interactional Units 19-24: Chopsticks Discussion and Angie’s Revelation

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit Comments 19 388 Mrs. Green: go back to that email where it Mrs. Green attempts to talks about making the initiate a failed arrangements interaction, her second attempt (see lines 315-316 for the first). 389 Angie: OH The sudden uptick in volume enables Angie to gain the floor. Its tone suggests something of an epiphany. 390 NO- 391 there's this- 392 [this one where it had like a Angie brings to attention sign in sheet] an admittance record (“sign in sheet”) on which there appeared the dates someone had been admitted to the mental illness hospital, named Golden Hands Rest Facility for Piano Prodigies. 393 Mrs. Green: [((unintelligible))] 394 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 395 and this part XXXX 2001 At this point, from memory, Angie guesses that the first date of Glory’s admittance is in 2001. 396 Mrs. Green: 2001 (..) yeah 397 so… 398 Angie: was that the mom's name on Line 398 can be traced there back to Interaction 11, where Mrs. Lewis posits the interpretation that Glory’s mother had a

162

mental illness. This may also explain why Angie’s yelp-like epiphany in lines 389-390 do not appear to be linked to the previous few interactions and additionally provide some insight into the rationale behind Angie’s yelp-like (and affect-driven) explications. 399 or was that hers? 400 Mrs. Green: oh↓ 401 I don't know 402 Mrs. Lewis: here 403 you find it ((Mrs. Lewis hands Angie now holds the book the book to Angie.)) and this indicates an increase in her power within the interaction. 404 Mrs. Green: yeah 405 find the sign 406 and then we'll look at that email again really quick 20 407 ((Mrs. Lewis looks around the Interaction 20 begins as classroom.)) Mrs. Lewis breaks frame to survey the classroom, apologizing to Mrs. Green for the lack of attention paid to the rest of the students. 408 Mrs. Lewis: sorry ((Mrs. Lewis glances at Mrs. Green.)) 409 we're like totally ignoring This interaction everyone else additionally provides a unique meta-window on the affective intensity of their intellectual discussion. 410 but this is like- Implied or elliptical concept after “like” is a concept similar to awesome, deep, exciting, etc.

163

411 Mrs. Green: they’re into it ((Mrs. Green Mrs. Green, who appears turns around and surveys the in the video to be even classroom. Students are quiet less attentive to the and have heads positioned students (in part due to her down reading.)) body positioning facing away from the students), turns quickly and seeing that the students are quiet and have their heads positioned down in reading postures, assures Mrs. Lewis the students are reading their graphic novels and pivots immediately back to Angie. 412 [they’re good] 21 413 Angie: [((unintelligible))] In lines 413, 415, and 417 Angie appears to be reading under her breath. 414 Mrs. Green: yes 415 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 416 Mrs. Green: [the sign-in sheet threw me for a loop] 417 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 418 Mrs. Green: [yes yes yes] Mrs. Green is now reading along with Angie, but her yesses imply that she agrees with Mrs. Lewis that the sign-in sheet shows that Glory’s mother had also been in the mental facility. 419 Angie: no Angie acknowledges, 420 [it was her] recognizes, but disputes Mrs. Green’s interpretation, arguing it was Glory, not her mother. 421 Mrs. Green: [OH NO] Lines 419-424 effectively 422 IT WAS HER displace Mrs. Lewis’ 423 and it's always XXXX to 2001 theory that Glory’s mother 424 so she's been there before had also been at the mental facility. Moreover,

164

Mrs. Green’s volume shift and prosodic features suggest surprise, which further supports Angie’s recognized dispute of what Mrs. Green implied in line 418. 425 Angie: it's repeating xxxx 426 it's here xxxxx 427 Mrs. Green: so she's like nine years old 428 [is that when her mom died↑] Mrs. Green here makes the critical connection between Glory’s admittances into this mental hospital with the event (her mother’s death in a motorcycle accident) that presumably caused or contributed to her mental instability. 429 Angie: [maybe she’s been-] Angie attempts twice (once here and once in line 435) to take the floor. 430 Mrs. Lewis: yeah 431 maybe- 432 Mrs. Green: so she’s been in 433 yeah 434 almost every year 435 Angie: maybe she’s been- Angie again attempts to take the floor. 436 Mrs. Green: so she's gone to this rest Summary of proposal facility before signals the end of the interactional unit. 22 437 so the other thing is like “so” indicates Mrs. Green’s pivot to a related but not identical topic and thus initiates Interactional Unit 22. 438 "rest facility" Mrs. Green and Mrs. 439 is that… Lewis are discussing the 440 Mrs. Lewis: what does that mean ambiguity of the name 441 Mrs. Green: like a [mental-] Golden Hands Rest 442 Mrs. Lewis: [it makes me think of like] Facility. Mrs. Lewis’

165

443 Mrs. Green: but it’s all like [piano players] suggestion of a retirement 444 Mrs. Lewis: [a retirement-] home (line 444) refers to a 445 Mrs. Green: right common American term, 446 exactly “rest home,” used to 447 but it's all like piano players denote a facility or though community of homes for 448 Mrs. Lewis: where do they say that elderly or chronically ill 449 Mrs. Green: I think it- persons. However, it is 450 Mrs. Lewis: does it say it on something↑ also possible that this is a 451 Mrs. Green: I think so last-ditch attempt to 452 Angie: “golden hands rest facility for revive her theory that [piano prodigies]” Glory’s mom was at the 453 Mrs. Green: [oh yeah] for piano prodigies “rest facility.” 23 454 but where's the one Mrs. Green finally gains 455 okay the floor to begin her 456 oh my god “email” interaction (see 457 so this is lines 341 and 358 for 458 Angie: [((unintelligible))] previous attempts). She 459 Mrs. Green: wait has found the page on 460 Mrs. Lewis: September 2010 which this email was and 461 Mrs. Green: this is before- is talking through her 462 this is two months before she thought as she is reading. disappeared 463 or whatever 464 Angie: umhum 465 Mrs. Green: cuz it said Mrs. Green is reading 466 “I tried to stop her from from an email in playing Chopsticks sent from a 467 blah blah blah family friend to Glory’s 468 I need help with father. The email was sent arrangements” the night after Glory 469 when I first saw arrangements broke down during a I thought private concert at her 470 oh (.) funeral arrangements house. The email reads: 471 but no “I’m sorry about tonight. 472 it was arrangements When you said you 473 to like get into the- already lost Maria 474 Mrs. Lewis: get her into the facility [Glory’s mother] and were afraid of losing Glory too, I didn’t know what you meant. Now I know. I tried to stop her from playing—I hope that was

166

the right thing to do. [...] At any rate, if you need help with the arrangements, just let me know.” 475 Mrs. Green: right 24 476 ((Emergency alert system The school was close to begins announcement. The the town’s emergency school was close to the town’s alert speaker and the speaker and windows were windows in the classroom open; it was very loud.)) were open; it was very loud. 477 Angie: but maybe Angie initiates a new interaction with “but maybe”; the use of the conjunction “but” is a common interactional transition cue and the use of “maybe” is used to signal a new interpretation proposal. This interaction appears to be the same one she attempted on lines 429 and 435 but this cannot be verified. 478 I mean 479 maybe cuz she's been admitted 480 maybe cuz she's been crazy through this whole thing ((Angie gestures to her head and face referencing a mental illness.)) 481 and maybe what happens is [her] 482 Mrs. Green: (.hhhhh) Mrs. Green’s loud and stylized gasp indicates acknowledgement, recognition, and through its affective and emotive quality, social significance as well. 483 Angie: maybe it's just 484 her xxxxxxx Angie’s discourse in line

167

485 Mrs. Green: >maybe he's not real at all↑< 484 is unintelligible, but 486 Angie: yeah her understated “yeah” in line 486 suggest Mrs. Green’s statement that Frank is “not real at all” on line 485 is a re-voicing of what Angie just said. 487 maybe she's xxxxxxxxxxx 488 Mrs. Lewis: >stop it< Mrs. Lewis says this line in a sarcastic and somewhat playful tone. It is meant as a form of positive feedback. 489 [XXXXXX] 490 Angie: [scary it's scary] 491 Mrs. Green: [he might not be real at all The new interpretation has then↑] Glory being placed on and 492 seriously off into the psychiatric 493 she might be rest home Golden Hands 494 [fantasizing that whole thing] ever since she lost her mother in a motorcycle accident. Obsessed with play the waltz “Chopsticks,” perhaps due to it being the song she played at her first piano recital in 1999 (before her mother’s death). Glory eventually constructs an elaborate romance with an imaginative boy from Argentina named Frank. 495 Angie: [OH OH and then] ((Angie suddenly moves back a half step, arches her back, and turns toward Mrs. Green with an expression of surprise.)) 496 [>wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute<] 497 Mrs. Green: [and the “Chopsticks” with the f and g] 498 Angie: [look] ((Angie is rapidly flipping through the book.)) 499 Mrs. Green: [and the thing on the back]

168

500 Angie: >maybe she's writing to herself< 501 >maybe this< entire (..) time Here Angie proposes that she's writing to herself all of the letters and instant messages Frank sent to Glory were actually from Glory herself. 502 BOOM Both lines 502 and 503 503 OH ((Angie throws her head are markers of excitement back and arches her upper and victory/achievement. back.)) 504 [ohhh:::] 505 Mrs. Green: seriously 506 cuz she might be fantasizing that whole thing 507 Mrs. Lewis: OH NO ANGIE ((Mrs. Lewis Mrs. Lewis says this very shifts backwards in her seat, loudly and her kinesetic as if startled, and smiles and prosodic features broadly.)) evidence excitement in 508 now I'm thinking a whole response to Angie’s new [nother thing] theory. Line 507 should not be read as a sign of anger toward Angie but rather, like “stop it” in line 488, as sarcastic and complimentary. 509 Mrs. Green: [I think he-] ((Mrs. Green turns toward Angie and moves her hand up and down, as if making a point.)) 510 I think she made him up 511 the whole entire time 512 [cuz if she-] 513 Angie: [she’s crazy] 514 Mrs. Green: cuz otherwise 515 Angie: [BOOM::] 516 Mrs. Green: [why would they say that it started in 2001] 517 with her going to this place 518 Mrs. Lewis: so the whole thing is- 519 Mrs. Green: the whole thing is made up 520 Angie: [((unintelligible))]

169

521 cuz 522 Mrs. Lewis: stop Almost identical in meaning to Mrs. Lewis’s lines on 488 and 507: a sarcastic and positive response. 523 Angie: it never shows his plane The sirens are very loud tickets ((Emergency sirens yet the interlocutors do begin blaring. Angie slaps her not seem to outwardly forehead and slightly jumps recognize the distraction up and down two times.)) at all and continue without 524 or his xxxxx hesitation their discussion. 525 or his xxxxx In line 523, Angie 526 OH::: warrants her claim that 527 [BOOM:::] Frank is fictional by 528 Mrs. Lewis: IT DOESN’T pointing out the book 529 Mrs. Green: IT DOESN’T ((Mrs. Lewis never shows his plane takes the book back from tickets to New York. As Angie.)) lines 524 and 525 are dependent on the clause in 523, we can assume the unintelligible words further warrant Angie’s claim by providing examples of things the book did not depict regarding Frank. Angie’s examples are validated by Mrs. Lewis and Green’s excited and loud confirmation (lines 528 and 529). 530 and then the back says Mrs. Green references the ((Angie begins chewing on the back of the book. fingernails of her right hand.)) 531 ["madness of what's real and what's not"] 532 Mrs. Lewis: [((unintelligible))] 533 Mrs. Green: so she's playing “Chopsticks” and going crazy 534 and she's fantasizing this f (.) g- 535 like f and g 536 f and g

170

537 Mrs. Lewis: what does it say about… ((Mrs. Lewis begins to look down at her phone.)) 538 Angie: and all he does is hand her A significant percentage links of Frank’s interactions 539 of piano players with Glory occur online. 540 and all that stuff 541 Mrs. Green: umhum 542 Angie: and maybe Angie proposes that Glory 543 she's just finding these is finding these links herself. 544 and she's like xxx 25 545 Mrs. Lewis: I didn't read anything about the authors 546 did you↑ 547 Mrs. Green: no 548 Mrs. Lewis: [((unintelligible))] 549 Mrs. Green: [and I was hoping there was an authors note] 550 Angie: [yeah] 551 Mrs. Green: [but there’s not] 552 Angie: [oh my god] 553 I like the author q and a's 554 Mrs. Green: [I do too] 555 Mrs. Lewis: I want to talk to xxx 556 Angie: we should email the author Here there is a clear shift 557 Mrs. Lewis: you should email the author back to the traditional power relations in the classroom. 558 Mrs. Green: yeah. 559 I bet there's an interview somewhere 560 I'd go xxx those rainbow one's were good 26 561 alright ((Mrs. Green turns toward the class.)) 562 well 563 you better talk to Ravna 564 and see what she thinks 565 ((Angie looks to Ravna at the Angie exaggeratingly back of classroom and makes wipes “sweat” from her an exaggerated display wiping forehead. the outside of her right

171

forearm against her brow.)) 566 Mrs. Lewis: did any of you girls read Chopsticks↑ ((Directed toward a nearby table of girls.)) 567 we want to see you go down the path 568 and I think that it could be on point 569 Angie: I kinda want to just scream Angie here references her affective state, with the implication that were she not in the classroom she very well might have screamed. 27 570 ((Ravna walks to the front of the classroom. Mrs. Green, Angie, and Ravna have a brief conversation. Mrs. Green gave Ravna Chopsticks to read at home that night.)) 28 571 Mrs. Lewis: alright guys 572 so I'm sorry 573 but we were just totally 574 just engrossed 575 this is a good learning experience 576 because this book turned my world upside down 577 because I find them quite a bit harder to read. 578 if you're reading them 579 not just looking at them 580 graphic novels are much more difficult to read than other ones 29 581 ((After a few more closing remarks, class ends and the students file out.))

Transcript 21 picks up from the end of Table 11 and begins interactional unit 19.

In it, Angie brought to attention the importance of the Golden Hands admittance records,

172

or “sign in sheet” (line 392). As it relates to participation structures, Angie was taking on a larger role in the conversation as it continued. In line 388, Mrs. Green attempted to initiate an interaction about the email (for the second time), but the proposal is not taken up and instead is taken over by Angie with a loud “OH, NO-“ (lines 389-390). This shift in power was symbolically accentuated when Mrs. Lewis handed Chopsticks to Angie.

The book, which had first been in Mrs. Green’s hands, then in Mrs. Lewis’s, found itself for the first time in Angie’s. In this case, Angie’s gaining of the book is again evidence that their participation structure continued to shift, with its shift producing a corresponding change in their situated identities as readers and interlocutors.

Transcript 21 provides myriad points of discussion in terms of indicators of jouissance. In addition to Angie’s exclamatory “Booms” (lines 502, 515, and 527), markers include increased stress and volume, prosodic cues including velocity shifts, fewer pauses in their discourse, and the repeated overlapping and simultaneous talk that in this case suggest understanding and agreement (cf., Gumperz, 1986). These, taken together with corresponding kinesic and proxemic contextualization cues, point to a shared and excited engrossment with Chopsticks manifested through the discursive and intertextual practices in their (all three interlocutors) approach to reading comprehension.

This analysis is further warranted through a volume, stress, and velocity crescendo. At the very beginning of their discussion the three were almost whispering, but throughout their fifteen-minute conversation, their volume increased substantially, stressed words occurred more frequently, and the speed of their utterances increased considerably.

173

Although standard transcript conventions allow for shifts in volume line by line, the gradually rising volume floor (or baseline) is more difficult to display.

In terms of jouissance, what is telling is Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s intense engrossment to the point of ignoring or not registering the ongoing interference from the other students (or the emergency test siren that was sounding at the time). All three continued their discussion as if the alert and the sirens were not present. This absorption with Chopsticks is explicitly referenced in Interactional Unit 20 (lines 407-

412) when Mrs. Lewis apologized to Mrs. Green for “totally ignoring everyone else”

(line 409). Mrs. Lewis brought this up again at the end of class, telling the entire class that she was “sorry, but we [were] just totally engrossed” (573-574).

It is in Interactional unit 24, the climax of Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s lengthy discussion on Chopsticks, that empirical evidence of an event of jouissance occurred. Angie initiated the interactional unit with her use of “but maybe” (line 476).

This conjunction is a common transitional cue, and throughout their discussion, all three speakers used the term “maybe” to signal new or revised interpretative proposals. It should be noted that Angie’s line of reasoning appears to be the same one she attempted to bring up on lines 429 and 435, but this can only be suggested as she lost the floor.

More pertinent to our discussion is the fact that as Angie uttered line 477, the city’s emergency alert system began its verbal announcement, which can be heard clearly in the classroom as Mrs. Lewis’ room faced the community’s town square and its emergency alert speaker; moreover, all six windows lining the outside wall were open. Note that while there is no conceivable way the interlocutors could not hear the alert (this can be

174

further warranted by the other students in class turning their heads to the windows as it began), they did not appear to register it at all and continued their discussion as if the alert and its corresponding sirens (which start on line 523) were not present.

Between lines 478-480, Angie began picking up her pace and intensity. Gumperz

(1982) categorizes the increase or decrease in tempo as prosody, noting that it does not signal particular meaning by itself—instead, it must be contextually interpreted. In this case, it clearly keys Angie’s excitement with her new interpretation. Angie’s paralinguistic and prosodic cues—increased tempo, excited and choppy speech, repetition of “maybe”, parallel syntax (lines 479-480), and her increased volume—suggest that she felt this interpretation (an affective thought-force) and its potential consequences without being able to consciously understand it. Thought-language delays can be attributed to many different causes, but in this instance, I contend it keys excitement. In any case, Mrs.

Green’s loud and stylized gasp (line 482) indicates acknowledgement, recognition, and through its affective and emotive quality, social significance as well. Angie’s discourse after this recognition is unintelligible, but her affirmation of Mrs. Green’s question in line

485 (Frank is “not real at all?/!”) suggests that Mrs. Green re-voiced Angie’s previous statement. To clarify, Angie here was making the claim that Glory made Frank up. It is not clear if her first proposal (lines 478-480) references only Glory’s imagined escape with Frank to Argentina, but it is clear that by line 485 Mrs. Green thought that Angie meant Frank is a figment of Glory’s imagination. Line 495 starts Angie’s second epiphany: remembering that they had earlier found out that what they thought was

Frank’s handwriting was actually Glory’s, Angie arched her back and stepped backward,

175

signaling surprise and revelation. Her loud interruption of Mrs. Green further corroborates this reading of her body language.

The rest of the interactional unit is full of discursive and paralinguistic markers of jouissance. Take lines 498-534 as an example: flipping rapidly through the book, Angie found the page she was looking for (from her epiphany in 495) that warranted her interpretation that Frank was not only an imaginary boyfriend but not her neighbor at all

(that is, he is not real), instead, Glory constructed him out of thin air. The stress on and pause between “entire” and “time” (line 501), along with the stress she placed on these words show this. And then she followed this with three ringing exclamations: “BOOM |

OH | ohhh:::” (lines 502-504), throwing her head back and closing her eyes in a sort of primordial yelp. “Boom” here was used to reference the “victory” of her interpretation, but it was clearly not used in an intentional or conscious manner; the exclamations were relatively unmediated and signal a visceral, embodied excitement that is difficult to put into words. Angie’s sudden jerk backwards is material evidence of her moment of jouissance: she realized (at least in her understanding) that Frank is not real, that her hitherto interpretation of the text must be entirely disregarded—thrown out—that the doxic assumption of a fiction’s “gradual unveiling” of meaning “explodes” (Barthes,

1972, p. 49) into a “heap of broken images” (Eliot, 1922); her “BOOMs” (lines 502, 515, and 527) are this moment’s sonic shock waves—quite literally, its sonic booms—trailing its detonation and reverberating its antecedent.

A brief discussion of the basis for claiming the presence of jouissance is here needed. As proposed in the paragraphs above, I note that the discourse markers all three

176

interlocutors evidence, including increased stress and volume, fewer pauses, and overlapping speech indicate excitement with their discussion and within their interaction.

This behavior suggests the possibility of jouissance. However, in combination with various other indications, I argue for the condition of jouissance. For example, one of the ways Barthes (1973/1975) conceptualizes textual jouissance is by noting that it cannot be spoken of. Thus, Mrs. Lewis’s earlier statement (lines 407-412) in which she could not name what it was they were experiencing is telling. Additionally, the fact that the emergency alert siren was blaring during the last part of their conversation and that the interlocutors did not pay it any attention supports the idea of textual jouissance as being absorbed or engrossed in a text. Finally, Angie’s “booms” (lines 502, 515, and 527) further warrant the claim that condition of jouissance is present. In this case, the “booms” are visceral and unmediated, and suggest an enjoyment that cannot be put into words.

That they are yelled, and that Angie later says she wants to scream (line 569) again provides further evidence. In this sense, the use of microethnographic discourse analysis provides the ability to make reasonable inferences that jouissance had occurred. Below, I continue to analyze Transcript 21.

Mrs. Lewis’s responses and their paradoxical contributions to the affective qualities of the climax will be discussed briefly. Her use of “>stop it<” (line 435; also,

“stop” on line 471) seems out of place; a cursory reading of this interaction would question why, right after her student proposed a complex but feasible interpretation of a book, a teacher would tell her to stop talking. But Mrs. Lewis’s body language and facial expressions (she was smiling throughout this interaction), alongside ethnographic

177

background knowledge of her use of playful sarcasm across the year and in particular, with Angie, demand an alternative interpretation. Mrs. Lewis, speaking just two words, was saying that she does not want to hear what Angie is proposing because it will force her to revise everything she had thought about the book, but through its sarcastic tone

(e.g. paradoxical), that she does want to hear it. I observed Mrs. Lewis use sarcasm on a regular basis so it was not uncommon; however, its use here was unique. Moreover, I contend it was also meant as a form of positive feedback, as if she were telling Angie that she was on to something big. Mrs. Lewis’s loud exclamation, “OH NO ANGIE” (line

455) and her shift backwards in her seat (as if startled), further support this interpretation.

As the class wrapped up, Mrs. Green asked Angie to recruit Ravna in her attempt to understand Chopsticks. Mrs. Green handed Ravna the graphic novel and specifically forbid Angie discuss their recent conversation until Ravna finished reading it. The following day, Thursday, Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis took their classes on a field trip to the local library, within walking distance of Memorial Middle School. During this field trip, Angie and Ravna began putting various pieces of their interpretation of Chopsticks together.

On Friday May 9th, 2014, during the first half of the language arts block, while the rest of the students were beginning to independently read their personal graphic novels,

Mrs. Green sat on the floor with Angie and Ravna around the low ground table positioned at the front of the room (cf. Figure 4) and the three worked through Chopsticks, discussing various facets critical for their interpretation of the book. During the middle of this conversation, Angie and Ravna began to focus on the symbolism of Chopsticks’s

178

repeated and often superimposed images of dandelions, squid, octopi, and mythological sea creatures. Mrs. Green began searching the Internet with her phone for information.

Among various guesses as to their symbolism, Angie and Ravna picked up on squids’ claimed symbolic meaning of identity loss; the three also had and were discussing an online article that Mrs. Green had printed about the book’s possible interpretations.

However, here and throughout their research, they were only marginally interested in others’ interpretations of the book, although they did utilize some of the clues others had found. They drew on their classmates as much as, if not more than, the information they found on the Internet. For example, in their quest to determine the meaning of the sea creatures, they called Nate, known in the class for his in-depth knowledge of mythology, to the front of the room and asked him about a particular sea monster in Chopsticks. Nate indicated that this figure was likely from Greek mythology and its engorged stomach was full of human bodies; he continued on, commenting that the dragon was likely a medieval modification of earlier Greek and Roman monsters. At this point, perhaps due to Nate’s rather extensive answer, Angie wondered if the symbols were less specific in nature and point more generally to the importance of water; Ravna picked up on this to argue that the picture of the bathroom in Chopsticks, which appears right after Glory’s escape from Golden Hands, suggests that Glory committed suicide by drowning in the bathtub.

That Saturday, Angie went to Ravna’s house where they spent hours weaving a headband out of yellow dandelions, finding similar clothing as worn by Glory, and setting up and taking pictures like those in the book. The two girls imitated five different

179

pictures from Chopsticks. Due to IRB privacy issues, I cannot show all of them. Figure

14 is Angie and Ravna’s picture, which looks identical to one of Glory’s paintings in

Chopsticks. Please note that I kept Figures 14 and 15 in color, as the dandelions Angie and Ravna used to spell “Good luck G [Glory]” and Angie’s dandelion headband did not show up when I attempted to convert the images to black and white.

Figure 14. Angie and Ravna’s Imitative Photograph

In Chopsticks, there are multiple pictures of dandelions, both in bloom and seed head. In a few pictures of Glory, she wears a dandelion headband; finally, Glory and Frank used also use them (and draw them) for a variety of different purposes, including, as portrayed

180

in Figure 14, “writing” notes to each other. Figure 15, below, shows the dandelion headband that Angie wove.

Figure 15. Angie’s Dandelion Headband

Angie was proud of her headband and brought it into school on Monday to show Mrs.

Green and Mrs. Lewis; when I asked her about it, she smiled, explained what it was and how she made it, and told me that she would never do it again because it was really hard and it took forever.

Over the first few days, after Mrs. Green, Mrs. Lewis, and Angie’s initial conversation, the interpretation that Angie and Ravna decided upon was that Golden

Hands is a psychiatric rest home. Glory’s first stay there occurred shortly after her mother’s tragic death, and this event was the onset for her mental illness—ostensibly schizophrenia. As her piano career takes off, Glory, trying to cope with her loss, concocts not only her relationship with Frank, but the entire person of Frank. The girls decided this was the case because Glory’s mother was a business woman who owned and ran a

181

company that specialized in importing Argentinian wine from the Mendoza province; one of the last pages in the book is a picture of a wine bottle with a drawing of a boy who looks almost identical to Frank and the wine’s name was Francisco de Mendoza (e.g.

Frank Mendoza). As Glory’s mental health continues to decline, she finds herself in

Golden Hands permanently. However, Glory is convinced not only that Frank is real, but has also moved back to Argentina, so she escapes from Golden Hands and secures a job as a piano player for a South American cruise ship line, although it is unclear if she actually does board the ship. Ravna and Angie then proposed numerous interpretations of the ending, including suicide by pills, suicide by downing in her bath, continuing to travel the world and play piano, or following Frank to Argentina.

Olivia also read the book over the weekend and on Monday, Mrs. Lewis grouped the three of them together and asked Angie and Ravna to talk to Olivia about their ideas.

Transcript 22 occurred in the hallway between Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis’s classrooms

(cf. Appendix E for full transcript).

182

Transcript 22

Olivia’s Chopsticks Revelation

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 9 230 ((Olivia, Mrs. Green, and Robert, still holding the video camera, walk down the hallway to where Ravna and Angie are sitting)) 231 Mrs. Green: Olivia just finished reading Chopsticks recently 232 and we just talked 233 Ravna: does she understand xxxxxxx 234 Mrs. Green: well 235 she has her own ideas 236 and they’re kind of what we (are)- 237 our ideas initially were 238 but I want you guys to share with her your theory 239 and kinda point out why you think what you think 240 so this might blow her mind ((looks toward Olivia.)) 241 but Olivia can share first with you what she thinks 242 and it’s initially what you two thought 243 well, kinda 10 244 Olivia: I thought like at the end that she’s still alive 245 and that xxxxxxx Frank 246 because there’s a picture of them together 247 ((flips through book)) right here 248 so I first I thought she might have died 249 but now that they’re like together 250 I don’t think she did 251 Mrs. Green: so she looked at the plane ticket 252 she talked about - 253 Olivia: yeah 254 xxxxxx the plane ticket too 255 so then you know she’s gone somewhere 256 Mrs. Green: the evidence bag 257 right 258 had the same date 11 259 so now I want you guys to tell Olivia what you think 260 Ravna: [okay]

183

261 Angie: [so she] doesn’t have idea? 262 Mrs. Green: well 263 I didn’t have any idea 264 till you guys brought it to my [attention] 265 Angie: [Olivia] here’s- 266 we’re gonna try to not make you- 267 your head explode 268 Mrs. Green: I’m gonna step out 269 Angie: okay um 270 so xxxxx 271 Mrs. Green: maybe point out some of the evidence that you found 272 and then see if she can kinda- 273 Ravna: okay, 274 so first- 275 Angie: let’s see if you can put this together 276 Olivia: okay 277 Ravna: one of the reasons that we thought what we did 278 is because if you look at this symbol right 279 like the Williard Dunn symbol 280 his high school 281 it’s the same symbol as the um 282 Olivia: yeah, I noticed that 283 Ravna: Golden:::: 284 Olivia: but it just says something else underneath 285 Ravna: Hands 286 yeah 287 so that’s something to realize xxxxxxxxx 288 Angie: hold on 289 I want to show her something 290 wait wait wait 12 291 Ravna: and then there’s that ((points at the picture of the Francisco Mendoza wine bottle with the likeness of Frank on the label)) 292 which is the- 293 his name is Frank Mendoza 294 which is basically like 295 like her mother’s favorite wine 296 and there’s a picture of him on it 297 Angie: and then um- 298 there’s- 299 you see

184

300 and there’s one where he paints those pictures 301 Ravna: at the end- 302 Angie: at the end 303 Ravna: they all say G. Fleming 304 Angie: she had - she said her mother 13 305 Olivia: (HHH) wait::: 306 is she- 307 is he not alive? 308 Ravna: NO 309 A&R&O: @@@@@@@@@@ 310 Ravna: @is @he @@@@ he’s not [real] 311 Olivia: [is he] a ghost? 312 Angie: no 14 313 okay 314 so what we 315 we came up with is that Glory is actually insane 316 and she imagined him this entire time 317 Ravna: Golden gun- 318 Golden Hands is like the insane asylum that she goes to 319 and that’s why it’s like “all staff” 320 like she breaks out xxxx at the end 321 she like goes to- 322 Angie: kills herself 323 Ravna: kills herself 324 and that like 325 Angie: xxxxx her heaven 326 it’s her heaven 327 her heaven is Frank

After a brief set of instructions to the group for Angie and Ravna to share their theory with Olivia (lines 238-241), Mrs. Green asked Olivia to explain how she thinks the book ended. Olivia argued that Glory and Frank are still alive and living together in

Argentina (lines 244-250). Angie, following Mrs. Green’s warning, “so this might blow her mind” (line 240), explained to Olivia that they are “gonna try to not make you- your head explode” (lines 266-267), and started explaining the evidence that her and Ravna

185

found and on which they built their interpretation. First, Ravna introduced the identical letterhead on letters from both Frank’s school, Williard Dunn, and Glory’s psychiatric rest home, Golden Hands. She then brought up the Francisco de Mendoza wine bottle with the likeness of Frank on the label. Finally, after Angie and Ravna pointed out that the artwork that seemed to be Frank’s was actually signed “G. Fleming” (line 303),

Olivia gaspsed “(HHH) wait::: | is she- | is he not alive?” (lines 305-307). Ravna answered that no, Frank is not alive and all three laughed at Olivia’s revelation. Angie went on to explain that their theory “is that Glory is actually insane | and she imagined him this entire time” (lines 315-316), committing suicide because she thinks it will reunite her with Frank (lines 322-327). At this point in their interpretation, Angie thought that Glory committed suicide via pills. Transcript 23 shows one of the notes that she and

Ravna were passing back and forth.

Transcript 23

Angie’s Chopsticks Theory

“How she died/escaped: G [Glory] was somehow able to escape the mental

facility, but that’s not it. a few pages after the “this is not a drill” page, there is an

image of a door creaked slightly open. This was a bathroom door and G [Glory]

was in there, Taking a lethal dose of pills—she committed suicide.”

Transcript 20 starts as Mrs. Green rejoined the group after stepping out and asked what she missed.

186

Transcript 24

Bathroom Suicide Theory

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 21 433 Mrs. Green: so, what did I miss? 434 Olivia: well like I think I- 435 as they started to tell me certain stuff 436 I was like oh my gosh 437 is he not even- 438 is he a ghost almost 439 or like- 440 so then they like told me they think she’s crazy 22 441 Robert: so where do you think she killed- 442 how do you know she killed herself? 443 why couldn’t she just xxxx 444 Angie: I came up with this 445 in the last two pages 446 the bathroom door 447 cuz you can tell the tile floor 448 which is typically bathroom

In this transcript, Olivia retold how she found out that Frank was not real (lines 434-440).

I then asked how Angie and Ravna could know that Glory committed suicide, and Angie reaffirmed her bathroom hypothesis (lines 444-448), as seen in her note to Ravna above

(Transcript 23). Transcript 25 relates additional theories as to Glory’s disappearance; these are also from notes that Angie and Ravna passed to each other.

187

Transcript 25

Additional Theories of Glory’s Disappearance

“Theory 1: G [Glory] escaped the hospital by digging her way out with the needle

and ran away with F [Frank] so everyone thought she went missing.

Theory 2: G [Glory] has been mentally insane ever since her mom died and

imagined her entire relationship with F [Frank]. In the end she used the thread to

hang herself/kill herself.”

Ravna and Angie also theorized that Glory killed herself by drowning in her bathtub.

Transcript 26 overviews Angie’s diagnosis of schizophrenia; please note that this diagnosis is not confirmed in Chopsticks.

188

Transcript 26

Angie’s Diagnosis of Schizophrenia

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 16 350 Ravna: I love this picture ((Points to a close-up of Glory’s face spreading out over two pages.)) 351 this is one of my favorites cuz this is like xxxx 352 and something just snaps ((snaps her fingers)) 353 Robert: or it’s- 354 what might what might she have? 355 Angie: I said schizophrenia 356 I said because- 357 Robert: okay 358 and what else though 359 what else might she have? 360 Angie: I mean she- 361 it’s trauma 362 and the stress of the piano 363 Robert: schizophrenia’s probably right- 364 it’s a good diagnosis 365 Angie: it’s auditory and visual hallucinations xxxxxxxxx 366 Ravna: and it was caused like by when her mom died 367 and she was pushed to do all this stuff 368 and then all at once-

Here, Angie provided her reasons for her schizophrenia diagnosis. She later told me that

“she did a big project on schizophrenia last year” and this is why she knew so much about it. Her argument was that Glory was an adolescent, she had a traumatic life event

(when her mother died), and she was under a lot of stress with her burgeoning piano career, all of which fit neatly into the medical field’s list of onsets for schizophrenia.

Additionally, and most importantly for their theory, people with schizophrenia are known to have both “auditory and visual hallucinations” (line 365), which explained Glory’s concoction of Frank and their relationship together.

189

However, at this point, there was one major flaw in their theory, and Olivia noticed it. Transcript 27 details this interaction and its subsequent revelation.

Transcript 27

Group Revelation About Glory’s Suicide

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 25 506 Olivia: so where would she have killed herself if she’s missing? 507 Ravna: EXACTLY! 508 that’s what I was asking Angie 509 Robert: [ahh:::: good question] 510 Ravna: [I was going to say] 511 yeah, 512 I was going to [say] 513 Olivia: [like] if she was they would have found her 514 Robert: you know what? 515 you know what? 516 let’s look- 517 let’s look- 518 I think this is the key 519 let’s look at that um- 520 look at the ticket 521 look at the plane ticket 522 I don’t think it’s a- 523 I don’t think it’s a plane ticket 524 Olivia: it talks about her like, 525 ((reading from email in book)) “I’m sorry tonight - you already lost Maria and we’re afraid of losing Glory too. I didn’t know what you meant.” 526 Robert: September 19th, 2009 527 Olivia: so- 528 Angie: so they know she’s mental- 529 like she’s… 530 Olivia: yeah 531 they know something is wrong 532 Robert: when did she [leave?] 533 Ravna: [they meant] mentally

190

534 Angie: she left December of 2009 535 Robert: okay 536 December 537 okay 538 [so this] ((points at the ticket dated in December 2009)) 539 Angie: [yeah, that doesn’t look like a plane ticket] 540 Robert: ((Reading from book)) “Entertaining Seas” 541 so that is a… 542 Olivia: “pier of destination” ((reading off ticket)) 543 it looks like a boat 544 Robert: so that’s a boat ride 545 so she’s taking boat to Argentina 546 not a plane 547 which means… 548 Angie: SEA CREATURES↑ 549 the- 550 Robert: no- 551 yeah 552 exactly 553 which means this means what ((points at picture at the end of the book that is a of a sun setting or rising from the middle of the ocean)) 554 Olivia: oh 555 that’s she’s on a boat 556 Robert: well 557 that- 558 Olivia: well that that’s the water almost 559 [she’s on a boat] 560 Robert: [how do you think she] killed herself? 561 Olivia: she jumped off 562 Angie: OHH::::: 563 Ravna: OH MY GOD↑ 564 Olivia: she jumped 565 Angie: [she was missing-] 566 Robert: [she had to] 567 and then she got on the- 568 Angie: [OHH::::] 569 Ravna: [OHH::::] 570 Olivia: cuz then she got on the boat 571 so she was missing 572 cuz she went on the boat 573 and then she killed herself on the boat

191

574 Ravna: oh my god that’s- ((uses both hands to cover her mouth)) 575 Robert: it has to be 576 cuz that’s not a plane [ticket] 577 Angie: [that] xxxx the sea creatures 578 Olivia: yeah 579 that’s not a plane [ticket] 580 Ravna: [so then this] must be her packing ((points at the picture of the bathroom door opened slightly)) 581 Olivia: that wouldn’t make sense 582 Ravna: we talked about that too ((faces Angie)) 583 Olivia: that wouldn’t make sense if she killed herself at her house 584 Robert: they would’ve seen her in the bathroom 585 Olivia: yeah, [they would’ve seen her] 586 Ravna: [cuz she left everything] behind though 587 Angie: you’re right 588 yeah 589 she jumped off the boat 590 Olivia: that- 591 that makes sense 592 Ravna: she left [everything] 593 Angie: [we gotta go] tell Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis 594 this is a big discovery ((Olivia gets up to go tell Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis.))

In this transcript, Olivia determined that because the police had already been to Glory’s house and taken evidence regarding her disappearance, then if she committed suicide in the bathroom (or anywhere in the house or Golden Hands), her body would have been found (line 506). Ravna supported this (507-508), and then I asked the girls to take a look at one of the last pages of the book where there is a ticket to Argentina. Olivia read it and figured out that it is boat ticket, not a plane ticket (542-543), and that if Glory did kill herself, she likely jumped off the boat (line 561). The girls were so excited about this new

192

revelation that they decided they needed to tell Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis about it (lines

593-594).

Overall, the entire literacy event in the hallway (cf. Appendix E for full transcript) is an illustration of jouissance during a literacy event. Here were three middle school students not only engaged and working hard but engrossed in a book and in trying to figure its secrets out. They were, almost without realizing it, gathering evidence, proposing interpretations, questioning interpretations, and synthesizing new ideas and evidence as they came up. Another piece of evidence for the girls’ jouissance comes from the graphic novel Ravna wrote for her final project. She decided to provide an overview of her year and in it mentions how she liked Chopsticks and that she had fun the weekend her and Angie took pictures imitating those in the book. The assignment itself was open, so for Ravna to single out from her entire seventh-grade year the Chopsticks event is substantial evidence of her jouissance. See Figures 16 and 17 below.

193

Figure 16. Ravna’s Graphic Novel Student Work Sample Part 1

194

Figure 17. Ravna’s Graphic Novel Student Work Sample Part 2

195

As Figures 16 and 17 show, the events during and stemming from Chopsticks were one of the highlights of Ravna’s entire seventh-grade year. She not only mentioned that she likes Chopsticks (Figure 16), but also that she enjoyed when her and Angie took pictures in imitation of it (Figure 17). Part three in her graphic novel had Angie speaking:

“Ravna (when) I come over to work on chopsticks xx we can take pics’ | Angie came over that day we had a lot of fun. So in conclusion I’ve had a very very intelligent yet fun year. Because I did what I love” (Figure 17).

Below are two letters; the first (Figure 18) was written by Ravna on that Thursday or Friday, and the second (Figure 19) is Angie’s response. It should also be mentioned that these letters were not written to fulfill an assignment; the two wrote back and forth to each other across their time in school in the days that followed the Chopsticks event and I was able to track down and scan a few of them.

196

Figure 18. Ravna’s Note to Angie

Transcript 28

Ravna’s Note to Angie Transcribed

“Dear Angie, Chopsticks makes me question life. What if I’m insane? What if I’m just insane and nobody notices me? What if I’m like Glory and that’s why I’m a prodigy? And that’s why I imagine things and stare at people and write and draw—what if I’m….insane? LOL here’s a funny thought: what if that book was written by an insane person? What’s to say we are not all insane? What if you are insane? That’s why you care about this book so much—it makes you see the truth. ~ Ravna”

197

Figure 19. Angie’s Reply to Ravna

Transcript 29

Angie’s Reply to Ravna Transcribed

“Dear Ravna, I agree. Maybe I write so much and am so weird because that’s just my reality? I’m insane? You’re insane? We all live in our own insane reality? I have no idea at this point. ~ Angie”

These notes demonstrate that Chopsticks affected both Ravna and Angie—it made them question their “psychological assumptions” and unmoored the tidy narrative of their lives. Additional factors that come into play: contextual events not directly related to

Chopsticks also occurred during the first part of the graphic novel unit when Mrs. Green conducted a suicide intervention/talk with a handful of girls in Angie and Ravna’s peer group. Suicide, mental anguish, and depression were a very real part of their lives; thus, their attraction to Chopsticks, which ends without providing definitive proof of whether or not Glory reached Argentina, committed suicide by jumping into the ocean, or continued playing piano on various cruise ships, may have and likely was related to other life events around Angie and Ravna at the time. Even more heartbreaking, Ravna had lost

198

her father the previous year and was still in the middle of dealing with this loss. The opening of her note to Angie takes on new meaning with this understanding. Ravna wrote, “Chopsticks makes me question life. What if I’m insane”? This questioning is precisely what Barthes discusses—that is, the idea that textual jouissance must consist of the loss and the pleasure and the fear that appear at that moment a reader glimpses the

“truth” that language is not whole, that meaning is not assured. Ravna: “What’s to say we are not all insane[?] What if you are insane and that’s why you care about this book so much[—]it makes you see the truth” (Figure 18; Transcript 28). Angie: “We all live in our own insane reality? I have no idea at this point” (Figure 19; Transcript 29).

One cannot, however, exist permanently in jouissance: our existential need for narrative order does not allow it (Bruner, 1990; Gee, 1989). Barthes recognizes this issue and proposes that the only path forward is through “an aesthetic of textual pleasure”

(1973/1975, p. 66), “by means of a fiction—not realistic but accurate” (1977, p. 104). The aesthetic Barthes here proposes is not one concerned with artistic judgment, but rather one concerned with aesthetic fashioning (or narrativizing). It could be argued that

Chopsticks is Glory’s attempt to aesthetically fashion her life: the scrapbook quality of the book with photos of her childhood and newspaper articles recounting her rise as a piano prodigy is reminiscent of the way many people (re)construct the trajectory of their lives. While this narrative fashioning is very difficult for Glory, she has a psychological need for a coherent narrative; thus, despite the possibility of misidentifying signs, Glory fashions her fictive identity—her “own insane reality”—by filling the loss of her mother with Francisco, his image appropriated from a bottle of wine that her mother had

199

imported from Argentina. For Angie and Ravna, it is here, amid the “truth” of wreckage and ruin, that they can refashion the fragments: “Then perhaps the subject returns, not as illusion, but as fiction” (Barthes, 1973/1975, p. 62). Turning back to the academic research, while traditional theories of engagement (e.g. Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ford, 1992) would hopefully characterize these events and Angie, Ravna, Olivia, Mrs. Green, and

Mrs. Lewis’s substantive intellectual interaction with Chopsticks as engagement, they would not be able to accurately theorize the intense jouissance the participants here evidenced.

Refining jouissance. The construct of jouissance is nearly non-existent in educational theories of teaching and learning. This may be, in part, due to its prominence primarily as a theoretical tool and the relative absence of empirical data evidencing jouissance. In research on adolescent literacy education, there is only one manuscript

(Lewis & Crampton, 2016) that discusses jouissance with empirical data. However, in their work, Lewis and Crampton utilize it to speak about it from an alienation perspective, not as a pleasurable experience. Thus, the major theoretical finding of this dissertation is that jouissance can exist in classroom language and literacy events. By evidencing the jouissance that Angie, Ravna, Olivia, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis experienced, there is now empirical evidence of pleasurable jouissance having occurred during a literacy event. This evidence has value not only in itself but also because of the theoretical potential in the construct of jouissance. Jouissance is a complex, multifaceted construct that has potential ramifications for theories of teaching, learning, pedagogy,

200

student-teacher relationships, reading comprehension, composition, and critical and social theories.

As Mrs. Green and Lewis discussed the ending and come to the conclusion that they are “just puzzled” (lines 64-66), Mrs. Green asked the class if anyone had read it

“because Mrs. Lewis and I are (.) | very much trying to figure out the ending” (lines 87-

88); Angie raised her hand and the entire event—an event of jouissance—erupted from there, unplanned; indeed, the Chopstick’s event was “not…projected toward some textual end point but as living its life in the ongoing present, forming relations and connections across signs, objects, and bodies” (Leander & Boldt, 2013, p. 22). Barthes (1981) makes a distinction between the teleological pleasure of a narrative’s climax and resolution and the text of jouissance’s explosion of this presumption: within a text of jouissance, a reader does not gradually approach its ending; instead, “everything is wrought to a transport at one and the same moment” (p. 52); it “explodes and disperses” (1981, p.

135). In other words, one way to distinguish jouissance from other conditions is its suddenness.

Another way to distinguish a text of jouissance from a text of pleasure is to ask whether it can be spoken of. A text of jouissance, Barthes argues, is unspeakable:

With the writer of jouissance (and his reader) begins the untenable text, the

impossible text. This text is outside pleasure, outside criticism, unless it is

reached through another text of jouissance: you cannot speak "on" such a text,

you can only speak "in" it, in its fashion, enter into a desperate plagiarism,

hysterically affirm the void of jouissance. (1973/1975, p. 22)

201

First, that jouissance cannot be spoken of is explicitly shown by Mrs. Lewis’s inability to say what she, Mrs. Green, and Angie were experiencing (lines 410; Transcript 21). The need to “hysterically affirm the void of jouissance” is built on Kristeva’s notion that when a child enters into language she necessarily surrenders access to the chora (the unconscious); this void, then, is the realization that what we imagine to be real (through language) is not. Paradoxically, entering the void is the only way to access the real, but such access (through jouissance, for example) is at best, transitory. Regarding Ravna and

Angie, their photo session that weekend was literally “a desperate plagiarism”—Angie and Ravna plagiarized Glory, down to her clothing, poses, and even her dandelion headband. As it relates to literacy education, Barthes’ notion of desperate plagiarism highlights the link between popular culture and pleasure (c.f. Dyson, 1997; Marsh, 2000).

In other words, allowing students to mine popular culture (characters, storyworlds, plot structures, etc.) for writing assignments seems advantageous. It also provides further evidence that fan fiction is a potentially engrossing pedagogic strategy. As to desperate plagiarism’s inherent issue with originality I will not comment except to note that in this case study, Angie and Ravna’s plagiarism of Chopsticks was, for them, highly enjoyable and, I would argue by their retelling of it, both in their post-Chopsticks group interview

(cf. Appendix F) and in Ravna’s graphic novel (Figures 14 and 15), meaningful—that is, through their ownership claims in retelling the Chopsticks event, they felt they held storytelling rights (Shuman, 1986).

In addition to jouissance existing, the construct of jouissance must be refined to dispute Barthes’ notion that jouissance is not social. He writes, “the text establishes a sort

202

of islet within the human—the common—relation, manifests the asocial nature of pleasure (only leisure is social)” (1973/1975, p. 16). And again: “The asocial nature of bliss [jouissance]: it is the abrupt loss of sociality” (Barthes, 1973/1975, p. 39). Here I argue Barthes is mistaken: Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis collectively and socially created this event during which they experienced jouissance. Later, Ravna and Olivia joined in this jouissance. Moreover, even if jouissance were experienced individually, the dialogic vision of subjecthood proposed by Bakhtin (discussed in the section on alienation) necessarily demands jouissance be socially constructed. This revision to the construct of jouissance is important to note in that it has the potential to shift research on jouissance from a unit of analysis of the single reader reading a single text to the social and dialogical process of how reading occurs in real life.

This dissertation refines the construct of jouissance simultaneously as incredibly pleasurable and potentially alienating. I build on Lewis and Crampton (2016), who use

Barthesean jouissance to analyze student alienation, and their notion “of jouissance or bliss to best explain the kind of disruptive discomfort that can create new ways of seeing”

(2016, p. 119). Jouissance, Barthes alleges, “imposes a state of loss…[and] brings to a crisis [her] relation with language” (p. 52). Angie’s reactions to the idea that Frank is only a figment of Glory’s imagination evidence the unsettling of her assumptions; as discussed above, much of this relates to the cultural understanding that endings of books must resolve narrative conflict. This assumption, of course, is played with in texts of all sorts, but the vast majority of these hold certain generic characteristics and often take the form of a reversal or an unmasking (e.g. the character assumed to be the protagonist is

203

actually the antagonist). From a literary viewpoint, Chopsticks is not above this criticism; but for the situated readers (Angie, Ravna, Olivia, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis), their experience with Chopsticks unmoored their “historical, cultural, [and] psychological assumptions” (Barthes, 1973/1975, p. 21).

In particular, Angie and Ravna evidenced the alienation of jouissance when they were writing notes back and forth and questioning how they could know what was real

(cf. Figures 18 and 19):

Transcript 30

Angie and Ravna Question Reality

Dear Angie, Chopsticks makes me question life. What if I’m insane? What if I’m just insane and nobody notices me? What if I’m like Glory and that’s why I’m a prodigy? And that’s why I imagine things and stare at people and write and draw—what if I’m….insane? LOL here’s a funny thought: what if that book was written by an insane person? What’s to say we are not all insane? What if you are insane? That’s why you care about this book so much—it makes you see the truth. ~ Ravna

Dear Ravna, I agree. Maybe I write so much and am so weird because that’s just my reality? I’m insane? You’re insane? We all live in our own insane reality? I have no idea at this point. ~ Angie

Here Angie and Ravna experienced the alienating effect of jouissance from their encounter with Chopsticks—they are questioning their basic ideological assumptions.

The alienation that Barthes describes, here and throughout The Pleasure of the Text

(1973/1975), stems from the same psycholinguistic phenomena that makes jouissance unspeakable: it cannot be spoken of because it sees into the void of the

204

Lacanian/Kristevan unconscious (the chora, the geno-text), “the place where the death of language is glimpsed” (p. 6). The death of language necessitates a “split subject”: one that simultaneously refuses to see and yet must see the destruction of their subjecthood, like onlookers to a deadly accident, who cover their eyes while peering through the gaps their fingers (in)voluntarily make, seeing (and refusing to see) their own mortality. The idea that Frank is only a figment of Glory’s imagination “brings to a crisis [their] relation with language” (Barthes, 1973/1975, p. 14). Seeing this void, this destruction of meaning,

Angie evaluates it: “scary it’s scary” (line 436), and Mrs. Lewis’s repeated mandates for

Angie to “stop it” (lines 435, 471) further support this suggestion. Moreover, there are hints that part of their loss stems from Chopsticks’ use of photos to “make real” Frank: our belief in what we see, even given our understanding that pictures can be manipulated, is a byproduct of our evolutionary and biological history.

The next question then is how does one snap back from jouissance? Barthes believes it is through aesthetically constructing a fictional identity, or subject. He writes,

“Then perhaps the subject returns, not as illusion, but as fiction” (1973/1975, p. 62). For

Angie and Ravna, this subject building likely looked very similar to the identities they had, but according to Lacan and Barthes, jouissance necessitates change. Ravna remarked twice to me, once in her conversation in the hallway with Angie and Olivia, and once in the group interview, that interpreting Chopsticks made her feel smart—she felt like she was doing what “a good thinker [does]” (cf. Appendix F, lines 680-685). Part of the power jouissance holds is in its ability to effect change to a subject—in other words, the subject cannot be the same after an event of jouissance. How drastic this change, what its

205

import is, etc. are all situational answers. What is critical to understand is that jouissance, as a moment of rupture, of dissensus (Rancière, 2004), has exponential power. Thus, as

Angie and Ravna attempt to refashion their lives, they do so after having experienced substantive change. At issue, then, is what and how these new identities change—for the better or for the worse? Is the new world in which they live one in which they have more agency than they had in the last world, or is it a world in which exists more alienation and fewer opportunities to create meaning?

The construct of jouissance relates to education in that moments of jouissance are significant events: whether the jouissance is negative (alienation), positive (pleasurable), or likely both, jouissance impacts the subject in powerful but unexplored ways. I argue that researchers should seek moments of jouissance as providing rich points of entry into data, but beyond that, should teachers try to induce pleasurable jouissance in the classroom? Certainly, educators want to minimize the alienation of students and simultaneously increase student engagement and learning. Assuming this is the case, then

I argue that yes, despite the lack of empirical research on jouissance, attempting to induce pleasurable jouissance in classrooms is a worthwhile endeavor. When students enter a state of jouissance, they are not only engrossed in what they are doing, they are also creating something meaningful (figuring out an interpretation, writing a narrative, conducting a science experiment, etc.).

206

Chapter 5: Discussion

The research questions that guided this dissertation addressed (1) how the constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance were conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and (2) how findings from the microethnographic discourse analysis of classroom events in which the conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance occurred led to a theoretical refining of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance. As such, in this final chapter, I first answer the research questions by summarizing the findings discussed in Chapter 4 and then I discuss the practical, methodological, and theoretical implications from the refining of the constructs of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance.

Alienation

The first research question asked: How is the construct of alienation conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of alienation refine the theoretical construct of alienation? Heuristically speaking, the construct of alienation has been conceptualized in four ways, the first from a Marxist approach, the second psychological, the third Lacanian, and the fourth interactional. This dissertation, building from these approaches, conceptualizes alienation as the feeling of estrangement students feel at school due to curricular decisions, assessment practices, etc. while simultaneously acknowledging the inherent alienation

Lacan postulates. Alienation was made manifest in the classroom in the first section of

Chapter 4 through the case study of the condition of alienation Will reported he experienced. Will was alienated in language arts class through a lack of stories (to read)

207

that he found interesting and a desire to write about things that were not school sanctioned (e.g. using violence, video games, popular culture, etc.). His favorite assignment, a story he wrote about a horde of “man-eating” dogs, also showed Will’s alienation as his protagonist defeated the dogs, but in the process destroyed the planet and everyone on it but him. The methodology used in the alienation section was microethnographic discourse analysis with an emphasis on Will’s interview responses. A limitation to note is that the case study of the condition of alienation was reported—that is, it was through an interview that the telling case of alienation was made manifest. In other words, Will was not (to my knowledge) alienated during the interview; rather, through his interview answers he was providing evidence of times, activities, and/or events in which he was alienated. As discussed in Chapter 4, the construct of alienation was theoretically refined in three ways. First, I synthesized findings related to Marx’s surplus value with Lacan’s surplus jouissance to argue that students, even when they are producing useless products, can find meaning in educational events and practices. The second theoretical refinement brought in the construct of storytelling rights and linked anti-alienation to the notion of authorship. The third theoretical finding integrates

Bakthin’s (1990) author-hero theory of subjecthood with Lacan (2004/2014, 1991/2007,

1966/2006, 1992) to propose a dialogic vision of the subject that can still account for

Lacanian alienation.

Implications. From the theoretical findings on the construct of alienation, practical implications for teachers include being aware of the condition of alienation and planning lessons and units to increase pleasure and excitement and decrease alienation.

208

Being aware of students’ emotional and affective states, such as alienation, is an important aspect of teaching. However, this dissertation urges teachers to look further than just overt signs of alienation (e.g. a student sleeping in class to show that they are bored) and also see those students who are procedurally participating during class but not learning. In other words, teachers cannot mistake compliance for engagement.

Implications for lesson planning include foregrounding what students find inherently meaningful. This is not always possible in school, as curriculum restrictions, testing, and ideologies regarding what is and is not appropriate within school all govern what teachers can and cannot attempt in the classroom. As it concerns language arts, however, one consistent finding across all three years of the study was that students appeared to genuinely enjoy creative writing projects. This finding was not only through participant observation as many students also asked for more opportunities to write during their interviews with me. For example, Will, despite stating that he did not like writing, when asked for his suggestions to help English language arts teachers plan lessons, said that he wanted more time to free write (cf. Transcript 10). This leads to the implication that the addition of creative writing within the English language arts classroom has the potential to combat student alienation; moreover, this instructional suggestion is essentially a cost-free pedagogic modification that can be manipulated into current state and local standards—that is, it is a protean instructional technique that can be used in addition to or alongside traditional teaching strategies.

That said, a redesigned curriculum that places emphasis on what students consider meaningful would ostensibly effect greater change than individual teachers. As it relates

209

to curriculum in English language arts, findings suggest an increase in creative writing projects, student choice in books, writing topics, and research topics, and the use of graphic novels to engage students. More generally, this dissertation further supports the general educational movement towards culminating projects, but it simultaneously highlights the seemingly off-topic opportunities students have when playing with texts. In other words, these findings suggest redesigning curriculums to encourage moments of students authoring meaningful texts in service of particular learning targets. For example, in the section on pleasure in Chapter 4, Mrs. Lewis, in introducing the day’s assignment to write stories by rolling the writing prompt dice (story cubes), provided the rationale that her and her fellow teachers were talking and wanted to give the students a break from the monotony of informational texts. Curriculum designers should build in opportunities like these that ideally let students make meaning while also deepening their understanding of the content, standards, etc. Take, for example, a unit based on a book that requires an understanding of tenses to comprehend the story; one could design a creative writing project that requires students to use certain tenses while leaving open what they can write about. Additional examples include, but are not limited to, the use of science fiction and nonfiction in STEM classes and the writing of historical fiction and nonfiction in social studies.

Methodological implications include a general call for more research on alienation in schools. As Yuill writes, “just because scholarly interest in a particular social process diminishes does not mean that the objective existence and experience of that process also comes to an end” (2011, p. 109). More specifically, this dissertation

210

suggests the construct of storytelling rights as an entry point into discussions of ownership and agency. In other words, when researching the most advantageous ways to combat alienation, one way to approach and locate emic information about events and activities that are meaningful is by focusing on the events and activities that students find tellable—that is, what educational assignments, projects, and events do students claim ownership of? Educational researchers can elicit this information through interviews, as this dissertation did. An increase in the discipline-wide corpus of narratives about educational assignments and projects would be a boon to researchers, teachers, and students alike. Another approach, more closely aligned with the narratalogical theory of

“small stories” (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008; Bamberg, 2004, 2006; Shuman,

2006) could investigate what students tell each other, in spontaneous everyday interactions, about their classwork, projects, and assignments. These retellings would provide additional empirical data refining the educational narratives elicited through interviews.

Theoretical implications from the refining of the construct of alienation reside in the suggestion of the uptake of a Bakhtinian vision of a dialogical subjecthood. Theories of agency and identity are undergirded by implicit or explicit definitions of the subject.

However, as Lacan argues, humans are inherently alienated, first in their separation from their mother and second by the very fact they use language. According to Lacan, this alienation is only ever escaped during moments of jouissance. I argue that utilizing

Bakhtin’s notion of a dialogical aesthetic subject construction is not incompatible with

Lacanian thought. Bakhtin believes that the subject aesthetically creates meaning by

211

narrativizing one’s thoughts and interacting in that moment as a participant with one’s interlocutors (whether human or not). This opportunity is “consummated” (Bakhtin,

1990) in the sense that a subject cannot be a being in the world without an other—that is,

“all real living is meeting” (Buber, 1923/1958). Lacan holds the same view and this provides potential theoretical grounding for a post-dystopian view of subjectivity that is not romantically agentive and does not foreclose the potentiality of meaning. This view of the subject requires additional theoretical work.

Engagement

The second research question asked: How is the construct of engagement conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of engagement refine the theoretical construct of engagement? The construct of engagement is conceptualized in extant literature and theory as a meta term designed to discuss, among other issues, motivation, emotions, attitudes, dropout rates, alienation, and time-on-task. In this dissertation, engagement is conceptualized as activities and events during which students are doing what they have been assigned to accomplish while not necessarily experiencing any pleasure in it. Essentially, engagement is conceptualized as time-on-task.

Engagement was made manifest in the classroom in the second section of Chapter

4 through the case study of the condition of Harper’s engagement with an informational digital writing project. This was a traditional teacher-directed writing project in which

Harper had to read various articles, take notes, and compose them in a Keynote presentation. The articles she read and her conversations with and drafts to Mrs. Green

212

evidence the social construction of her engagement. Harper conducted her final project, a

Keynote presentation, on bullying. However, despite working hard on the project and completing everything required to finish it, Harper was not actively authoring; instead, she simply moved her notes about bullying from her notebook into the presentation. In other words, despite appearing to her teachers and even her researcher to be engaged and excited about this project, I argue that Harper was procedurally displaying this engagement. Harper’s case is telling because it highlights one of the extant engagement theories’ largest flaw, which is that when teachers and researchers think students are engaged, they are often simply “playing school”—that is, participating in procedural display (Bloome, Puro, & Theodorou, 1989).

Implications. The construct of procedural display reveals that what teachers might often assume to be engagement is not. Procedural display, in and of itself, is not inherently “bad”—indeed, it is inevitable. Role playing is a crucial strategy for beings in complex social structures, so “playing school”, or in this case, “playing engaged”, is not malicious on the part of Harper; she is not “mock participating” (Bloome & Egan-

Robertson, 1989) but rather playing the role of engaged student. Critical for teachers is simply to be aware of procedural display and understand what one sees in her students’ reactions and discourse is not necessarily reflective of their individual affect state. This implication, then, proffers the question as to how teachers can see beyond procedural display: after all, teachers are not trained as researchers and moreover have a classroom of students to manage, so attempting to distinguish between time-on-task and excited

213

engagement is challenging. Further inquiry into how teachers react to procedural display is needed.

One methodological implication concerns the dominance of quantitative methods to research engagement. For example, a researcher using data gathered through questionnaires is in no position to argue that procedural display was not occurring. The idea of procedural display, then, demands at the least some type of observation as well as a discussion of the probability of procedural display before making substantive claims about participant engagement. I propose that those claiming student engagement provide thick description of the events and activities in question, building a corpus of qualitative case studies on and around the construct of engagement. Without this thick description, the entire validity of student engagement is suspect once procedural display is foreground. That is, as engagement research often uses the method of counting time-on- task, then the idea that students are “playing school” not only reveals the counting of time-on-task as problematic, but additionally suggests that whatever methodology being used to research engagement can fall prey to procedural display.

The second methodological implication of refinements to the construct of engagement is closely aligned with the first. In this dissertation, engagement was defined as time-on-task, and included within this construct is procedural display. That is, part of what students are expected to do in the classroom is play school. They are supposed to sit at their desks, raise their hands, and make eye contact—or, at the least that is what most teachers expect. Thus, they are engaged: they are on task. This leads to the conclusion that rather than expanding the construct of engagement, narrowing its definition would

214

prove methodologically beneficial. In brief, there are so many definitions of engagement one cannot determine what it actually means; thus, this dissertation proposes redefining engagement as time-on-task. What, however, should one term what is often thought of as engagement? Here I argue that a new construct is needed that accurately describes the excitement students have when intensely interacting within a learning event. I suggest the term engrossment be used so as to distinguish it from engagement. Theorizing the construct of engrossment is an area for future research, but a brief sketch suggests that by building on phenomenology and affect theory, engrossment could highlight the student body and her mediated and unmediated discursive and bodily reactions as evidence of visceral, embodied interactions within exciting educational events.

Pleasure

The third research question asked: How is the construct of pleasure conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of pleasure refine the theoretical construct of pleasure? In extant literature, pleasure is conceptualized variously as play, enjoyment, and entertainment; it is often associated with popular culture. As it is conceptualized in this dissertation, pleasure means that participants are enjoying what it is they are doing, but their intellectual effort is not necessarily high. Pleasure was made manifest in the classroom in the third section of Chapter 4 through the case study of the condition of Mia, Charlotte, and Emma’s pleasure during their narrative writing event. The condition of pleasure was analyzed through a discourse analysis of Mia, Charlotte, and Emma’s group writing session wherein they wrote love stories from a prompt given by Mrs. Lewis. This analysis

215

evidenced the sheer joy the participants felt during the event through a focus on their body language and laughter. However, the pleasure that Mia, Charlotte, and Emma experienced was due not only to the story cubes and the writing they were doing, it was also constructed in conversation with each other, as they read the stories out loud to each other, laughing and giggling. Additionally, the condition of pleasure may have been manifested in part from popular culture: the girls used various generic structures and tropes appropriated from mass media, such as “Once upon a time”, etc. Theoretical findings suggest that pleasure is a misunderstood and underused construct in educational research. Additional findings focus on the importance of laughter as it relates to pleasure and concludes by revealing the emancipatory potential inherent in laughter, and, by extension, pleasure.

Implications. In the case study of Mia, Charlotte, and Emma’s pleasure, the rationale Mrs. Lewis gave to the class for why they were writing that day was because she and the other seventh-grade language arts teachers had been discussing their recent focus on informational texts and wanted to give the students a break. The excitement and pleasure with which the entire class wrote their stories was apparent, and in particular the pleasure of Mia, Charlotte, and Emma. Despite this activity being a “break” from their unit, I argue that it was not a waste of time. To begin with, pleasure is inherently meaningful. Students in Mrs. Lewis’s class, in enjoying this literacy event, will likely have a more positive view of school, of Mrs. Lewis’s language arts class, and of writing more generally. These experiences, when combined with all the other literacy events students have participated in, shape the ways around which students think about

216

language, writing, their sense of selves as a readers and writers, and their feelings towards school, language arts, and reading and writing. Moreover, as it is suggested that as students learn how to write through writing (rather than, for example, through grammar lessons), then simply getting students to write is an acceptable and common sense instructional strategy.

Another implication of the refining of the theoretical construct of pleasure concerns the import placed on laughter as a sign of pleasure. The emphasis to notice and capitalize on laughter has implications for teachers and researchers. For teachers, noticing laughter from students is important in myriad ways. For example, if the laughter is because students are making fun of another student, then noticing it and curtailing said behavior is key. On the other hand, when and if laughter suggests student pleasure, whether they are reading a book or participating in a collective learning activity, teachers should be aware of and encourage both the students’ pleasure and the instructional activity. For researchers, laughter, in all its manifestations, is a rich site for data analysis.

Laughter, as discussed in the findings, is a visceral reaction that is primarily affective in nature. That is, because it is often unmediated, it suggests that moments in which laughter erupts are potentially telling cases, capable of bringing to light “previously obscure theoretical relationships” (Mitchell, 1984, p. 239). This is not to argue that laughter cannot be procedural display—for example, the canned laughter on television, or students laughing at a teachers joke because they feel required to laugh; however, real laughter—

Bakhtinian and Freireian laughter—in its ability to disrupt the status quo and challenge dominant ideologies—is a prime site for research. Further research on laughter must

217

address types of humor (e.g. sarcasm, jokes, etc.), types of laughter (e.g. chuckles, giggles, laughing so hard that one tears up, etc.), and the context around which laughter erupts (e.g. during a writing prompt, etc.). A related implication concerns the need for a more robust transcription system that can account for various types, lengths, and volumes of laughter.

Jouissance

The fourth research question asked: How is the construct of jouissance conceptualized and made manifest in the classroom and how do these empirical findings of the condition of jouissance refine the theoretical construct of jouissance? The construct of jouissance is conceptualized in extant literature as extreme pleasure and/or alienation and stems from Lacan’s reworking of Freud. Jouissance was made manifest in the fifth section of Chapter 4 through the case study of the condition of Angie, Mrs. Green, and

Mrs. Lewis’s jouissance during their initial Chopsticks discussion. Jouissance is more difficult to evidence; however, by laying out how Mrs. Green, Mrs. Lewis, Angie, Ravna, and Olivia made interpretive proposals, validated and made socially significant those proposals, I evidenced the socially constructed nature of their interaction. And through discourse analysis, Angie’s “BOOMs” ratify not only the social construction of, but indeed the existence of jouissance during a literacy event. Theoretical findings expand and refine Lacanian and Barthesean jouissance and place it into the language arts classroom. The most pertinent finding is that pleasurable jouissance exists; that is, by detailing the construct of jouissance and showing how it was made manifest in the classroom, this dissertation alleges that the condition of jouissance is real. Finally, the

218

theoretical construct of jouissance is refined as socially constructed and not purely an individual state.

Implications. The practical implications of the refining of the construct of jouissance are substantial. For students, experiencing jouissance is inherently meaningful whether it is positive or not. Moreover, when experiencing the condition of jouissance in school, students are not simply compliant, they are not simply engaged, they are not simply excited; instead, they are ecstatic. In the case study of Angie’s conversation with

Mrs. Green and Lewis, this ecstasy stemmed from interpreting a challenging text. In other words, rather than jouissance being thought of as an remedy for boredom, I argue it holds the potential to not only increase students’ educational enjoyment, but increase their learning, their desire to learn, and it pushes them to dive deeper into a subject or topic, perhaps even to the point of being frustrated. In other words, educational events of jouissance can be said to push students to stretch out their intellects and work hard solving a problem or making an argument. And while this is a clear example of the way

Vygotsky (1987) explains learning through the zone of proximal development, I argue that jouissance goes beyond the zone of proximal development in two ways. First, the fact that Angie, Ravna, and Olivia were frustrated, even to the point of getting headaches from thinking about Chopsticks (lines 59-77 in Appendix F), is evidence that this interpretation was outside of their zone of proximal development. Second, that rather than thinking of learning as climbing from step to step, jouissance foregrounds the explosive nature of learning. Barthes and Lacan conceptualize jouissance as disrupting an individual’s everyday ideologies, and this suggests that rather than building

219

understanding in a step-by-step manner, jouissance can explode the very meaning of meaning and it is from these pieces that the individual rebuilds her understandings. In a simpler, although more problematic heuristic, rather than learning as building, jouissance can be thought of as a puzzle in which each time a new understanding within jouissance occurs, the entire puzzle must be reassembled to include the new puzzle pieces gained

(e.g. that which was learned).

For example, after witnessing Angie’s jouissance, Mrs. Green and Lewis directed

Angie to share Chopsticks with Ravna, have her read it, and then discuss Angie’s interpretative understandings with Ravna. Mrs. Green and Lewis had Olivia read the graphic novel as well, and then they placed the three students in the same group. This was a change from their lesson planning, which was designed to form literature circles with each student reading their own graphic novel and sharing it with their group members. In other words, Mrs. Green and Lewis noticed the excitement with which Angie read and discussed Chopsticks; doubling down on this excitement, they speculated that Ravna and

Olivia would both evidence similar reactions to the text and by grouping them together, they provided the space (in language arts class) and time needed to nurture and encourage their jouissance.

In conceptualizing jouissace as an explosion or rupture—or, as Lacan puts it, “an iruption, a falling into the field” (1991/2007, p. 20), Lacan and Barthes argue that jouissance does not occur in an organized and linear fashion. It is not alienation on one side of the continuum and jouissance on the other, with pleasure gradually increasing to jouissance; instead, every instance of jouissance has its piece of alienation; moreover, it

220

can erupt from all sorts of activities and affect states. Lesson planning, then, with the purpose of creating jouissance is challenging, if not impossible. However, despite jouissance’s inability to be created, I do argue that jouissance is more likely to occur during and from events that are already pleasurable. Thus, teachers can potentially induce jouissance by providing the opportunities for students to create meaning during a learning event; if and when there exists non-alienating productions of meaning, events of jouissance may become more likely. Further research is here needed as empirical accounts of jouissance are essentially non-existent in extant research.

Methodological implications from the refining of the theoretical construct of jouissance rest primarily in the existence of educational jouissance and the introduction of jouissance into the educational field. While jouissance has been discussed in the fields of psychoanalysis and literature, empirical evidence of jouissance, both more generally and specifically within an educational setting, is in itself a major implication. By providing evidence of the condition of jouissance in a particular setting, this dissertation shows that jouissance is real—it can exist. The existence of jouissance reveals a number of methodological implications. First, that jouissance is another rich point of entry for researchers. As it is both a rupture of the ordinary (a dissensus) and evidence of an affective condition, researchers should seek out, locate, and expand the field’s nascent understanding of jouissance. At the least, additional research is needed to answer and reaffirm basic questions such as what jouissance looks like, what forms it takes, how it manifests itself in particular situations and contexts, and what impact it has on teaching and learning. However, to answer these questions beyond mere speculation will require

221

more empirical data. As it concerns educational researchers, another implication stems from the immense import Lacan placed on the construct of jouissance and its power to effect change on the individual. Lacan argues that jouissance is central to all human behavior, and as such should be central in all research endeavors dealing with humans.

Educational researchers, then, as they deal with humans, should take into account jouissance when thinking and theorizing about students.

Theoretical implications from the refining of the construct of jouissance relate to education and its potential to effect change. Kristeva (2008), for example, relates jouissance to trauma; understanding jouissance in this manner implies that events of jouissance are felt deeply by participants—that is, jouissance has the power to drastically impact those who experience it. Thus, its appearance in an educational event has implications for those theorists seeking to improve education, learning, pedagogy, and students’ experiences. In other words, because of its ability to exponentially effect change, investigating not only the construct itself, but theorizing about ways to utilize jouissance to further educational outcomes is paramount. However, this implies a shift in current ideologies around the purpose of education. If education is thought of as training for the workforce, then perhaps the field is not well suited for jouissance. But if education is about learning, and if learning implies a change from one state to another, then the construct of jouissance must be dealt with.

Conclusion

Research on student literacy practices and instruction have developed rapidly over the past few decades (Smagorinsky, 2006), and as a result, the skills-based instructional

222

techniques, such as grammar instruction, basal readers, vocabulary recitations, etc., which dominated twentieth century language arts pedagogy, have been infused with new and exciting ways of thinking about learning. Social science’s Vygotskian-inspired linguistic turn have led, in the field of English education, to the process writing approach developed by Murray (1972) and Graves (1983), the environmental mode forwarded through the work of Hillocks (1986), the concept of instructional scaffolding (Applebee, Langer, &

Mullis, 1987), to the current digital turn. These have all influenced, to varying degrees, teacher education pedagogy, and to a lesser extent, the actual instructional practices of teachers in the classroom. However, the usual form of instruction across the United States continues to be teacher presentation: student writing is

dominated by tasks in which the teacher does all the composing, and students are

only to fill in missing information, whether copying directly from a teacher’s

presentation, completing worksheets and chapter summaries, replicating highly

formulaic essay structures keyed to the high-stakes tests they will be taking, or

writing the particular information the teacher is seeking. (Applebee & Langer,

2011)

Perhaps not surprisingly, students’ writing abilities remain stubbornly stuck where they were in 1979-80 (cf. Applebee & Langer, 2011). In this vein, and following Newell’s

(2006) call to address “the central issue [of] motivation and engagement” (p. 245), this dissertation sought to research and describe through microethnographic discourse analysis the conditions of alienation, engagement, pleasure, and jouissance.

223

Eliciting these data at the high school level has traditionally been done through surveys, questionnaires, and psychological testing. This dissertation, however, is closer in methodology to Dyson’s (1990) study of elementary children; however, as it is at the middle school level, is caught between elementary and high school. The importance of adolescence is not a new thought, but there remains a tendency in the literature to discuss and research children differently in elementary school as compared to high school. That is, analogous to the way elementary pedagogy is student-centered, research on elementary students tends to be centered on the student, whereas high school students are studied through a disciplinary lens in much the same way the disciplines are taught by separate teachers. In this sense, this dissertation merges these approaches into a microethnographic discourse analytic approach that both focuses on the disciplinary event and the participants. For example, instead of conducting a survey of sixth grade literacy practices, I conducted microethnographic discourse analysis on their interviews.

In this respect, this dissertation was able to go beyond procedural display and provide empirical warrants for theoretical arguments built from the case up. In a similar manner, I conducted a microethnographic discourse analysis of the condition of jouissance rather than simply discuss the theoretical construct of jouissance.

At its core, this dissertation is about those moments when, for example, one gets so absorbed in a book or piece of writing that one loses sense of time. I am not just concerned with students being motivated or on task, but rather interested in those moments students (and teachers) are ecstatically engrossed in a textual interaction—when they “get lost” in literature or “get flowing” while writing. This dissertation suggests that

224

educators can maximize these pleasurable events in the classroom for improved student achievement (e.g. through fan fiction), but perhaps more important are the methodological implications as to how English language arts pedagogy, classrooms, theory, etc. be researched at the middle school level. A crucial aspect of this implication relates to the nature of children in middle school. Traditionally, middle school and middle childhood scholars have argued that transitioning students from the socially secure space of a single classroom that is student-centered to the disciplinary specific demands of high school is one of its greatest roles. However, I argue that while this transition period is indeed important, it must be emphasized that one does not have to lose student-centered methodologies in order to include disciplinary studies. That is, the microethnographic discourse analytic approach here foregrounded is robust enough to discuss discipline- related matters while placing the student, context, and particular situation front and center.

In other words, similar to Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis’s student centered teaching philosophy utilizing writing and reading workshops, this dissertation challenges the implicit assumption that the move away from student-centered methodologies is good. By following Smith and Wilhelm’s (2002) case study approach, building on the workshop research done by, among others, Calkins (1986) and Atwell (1987), and in conversation with literacy engagement scholars (e.g. Guthrie & Alvermann, 1999), this dissertation adds to these methodologies an explicit microethnographic discourse analytic approach to researching educational theory and pedagogy. In sum, educational research needs to address the emic answer to what matters to students. At the middle school level, what

225

mattered to these students was their pleasure in and during engrossing literacy events— their grades did not matter, their spelling did not count—only the sheer excitement and pleasure of authorship mattered. If, as it has been argued, the period of adolescence is of utmost import for the subject’s identity formation, then engrossing students in pleasurable literacy events will drastically impact their future thoughts about writing and reading, about their writer and reader identities, their English language arts student identities, and their student identities.

To conclude this dissertation, I want to curtail the suggestion that meaningful authorship refers to an “authentic” self. By the use of Bakthin’s conception of a dialogic subjecthood through authorship, I am not focused only on the production of signs, but rather, following Bakhtin (1986) and Volšinov (1929/1986), affirm that meaning is necessarily a situated, dialogic, and material interaction between at least two interlocutors. Moreover, even the words we use have their bit of alienation in them. That is, in light of this dissertation’s suggestion that Lacan’s inherent alienation might be fought with Bakthin’s view of a dialogic subject, it should be noted that all speech comes from the other:

Each utterance is a link in the chain of speech communication….our speech is

filled with others’ words, varying degrees of otherness and varying degrees of

‘our-own-ness’, varying degrees of awareness and detachment. These words of

others carry with them their own expression, their own evaluative tone, which we

assimilate, rework, and reaccentuate. (1986, p. 89)

226

In other words, the concept of “authentic” writing is problematic as it is only through the other’s words that one says anything at all. The next question to consider, then, is whether or not an event of jouissance can, as Lacan suggests, allow the subject(s) to bypass, if only for a few moments, inherent alienation.

227

References

Adorno, T. W. (1991). The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture. New York:

Routledge.

Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx. (B. Brewster, Trans.) Allen Lane, The Penguin Press.

(Original work published 1965)

Alvermann, D. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy

Research, 34(2), 189–208.

Anthony, J., & Corral, R. (2012). Chopsticks. New York: Penguin.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with

school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct.

Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984a). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. (C. Emerson, Trans.)

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published

1963)

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984b). Rabelais and his world. (H. Iswolsky, Trans.) Bloomington, IN:

Indiana University Press. (Original work published in 1965)

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. (V.W. McGee, Trans.)

Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas

Press.

Bakthin, M.M. (1990). Art and answerability: Early philosophical essays by M.M.

Bakhtin. (V. Liapunov, Trans.) Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

228

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barthes, R. (1975). The pleasure of the text. (R. Miller, Trans.) New York: Hill and

Wang. (Original work published in 1973)

Barthes, R. (1990). S/Z. (R. Miller, Trans.) New York: Blackwell. (Original work

published in 1970)

Barthes, R. (1994). Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes. (R. Howard, Trans.) Los Angeles,

CA: University of California Press. (Original work published in 1975)

Bauman, R. (1986). Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative.

Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Belton, T., & Priyadharshini, E. (2007). Boredom and schooling: A cross‐disciplinary

exploration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(4), 579–595.

Bloome, D. M., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social Construction of intertextuality

in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4),

304–333.

Bloome, D. M., Carter, S. P., Christian, B. M., Otto, S., & Shuart-Faris, N. (2010).

Discourse analysis and the study of classroom language and literacy events.

New York: Routledge.

Bloome, D. M., Carter, S. P., Morton Christian, B., Madrid, S., Otto, S., Shuart-Faris, N.,

& Smith, M. (2008). On discourse analysis in classrooms: Approaches to

language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.

Bloome, D. M., Puro, P., & Theodorou, E. (1989). Procedural Display and Classroom

Lessons. Curriculum Inquiry, 19(3), 265.

229

Boldt, G., Lewis, C., & Leander, K. M. (2015). Moving, feeling, desiring, teaching.

Research in the Teaching of English, 49(4), 430–441.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.) Cambridge, NY:

Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1972)

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buber, M. (1958). I and thou. (R.G. Smith, Trans.) New York: Scribner. (Original work

published 1923)

Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Carlsson-Paige, L. (1987). The war play dilemma: Balancing needs and values in the

early childhood classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of Research on Student

Engagement. Springer Science & Business Media.

Clark, C., Chow-Hoy, T., Herter, R., & Moss, P. (2001). Portfolios as sites of learning:

Reconceptualizing the connections to motivation and engagement. Journal of

Literacy Research, 33(2), 211–241.

Condition. (2009). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language (4 ed.).

New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Covington, M. V. (1984). The self-worth theory of achievement motivation: Findings and

implications. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 4.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:

Harper & Row.

230

de Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. (S.F. Rendall, Trans.) Los Angeles,

CA: University of California Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. Boston, MA: Springer US.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (R.

Hurley, M. Seem & H.R. Lane, Trans.) Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 1972)

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia.

(B. Massumi, Trans.) Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

(Original work published in 1980)

Du Bois, J. W., Paolino, D., Schuetze-Coburn, S., & Cumming, S. (1993). Outline of

discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data

Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–89). Hillsdale, NJ.

Duranti, A. (2009). Linguistic anthropology: A reader. John Wiley & Sons.

Dyson, A. H. (1997). Writing Superheroes: Contemporary Childhood, Popular Culture,

and Classroom Literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Egan-Robertson, A. (1997). “We must ask our questions and tell our stories”: Writing

ethnography and constructing personhood. In A. Egan-Robertson & D. M.

Bloome (Eds.), Students as researchers of culture and language in their own

communities (pp. 261–284).

Fink, B. (1996). The Lacanian subject. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

231

Ford, M. (1992). Motivating Humans: Goals, Emotions, and Personal Agency Beliefs.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Foucault, M. (2000). The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, 1954-1984. (P. Rabinow

& J. D. Faubion, Eds.). The New Press.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality, Vol. 2. New York: Vintage Books.

(Original published in 1984)

Fredricks, J. A. (2011). Engagement in school and out-of-school contexts: A

multidimensional view of engagement. Theory Into Practice, 50(4), 327–335.

Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of

the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–

109.

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M.B. Ramos, Trans.) Penguin Books.

(Original work published in 1968)

Freud, S. (1961). Beyond the pleasure principle. (J. Strachey, Ed. & Trans.) (pp. 1–312).

New York: W.W. Norton & Co. (Original work published in 1920)

Gadotti, M. (1994). Reading Paulo Freire: His life and work. (J. Milton, Trans.) (pp. 1–

244). State University of New York.

Gee, J. P. (1989). The narrativization of experience in the oral style. Journal of

Education, 171(1), 75–96.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic

Books.

Gergen, K. J. (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

232

Gluckman, M. (1961). Ethnographic data in British social anthropology. The Sociological

Review, 9(1), 5–17.

Green, J. L., & Bloome, D. M. (1997). Ethnography and ethnographers of an in

education: A situated perspective. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.),

(pp. 181–202). New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Green, J. L., & Wallat, C. (1981). Ethnography and language in educational settings.

ABLEX Publishing.

Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (1972). The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston.

Guthrie, J. T., & Alvermann, D. E. (1999). Engaged reading: Processes, practices, and

policy implications. New York: Teachers College Press.

Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school

through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 19(1), 59–85.

Guthrie, J. T., Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., et

al. (2011). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies

during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3),

306–332.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on

motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,

92(2), 331–341.

233

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional Contexts for Engagement

and Achievement in Reading. In Handbook of Research on Student Engagement

(pp. 601–634). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Hagood, M. C. (2005). Bodily pleasures and/as the text. English Teaching: Practice and

Critique, 4(1), 20–39.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B., & Street, B. V. (2008). On Ethnography: Approaches to Language and

Literacy Research. New York: Teacher College Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). Phenomenology of Spirit. (A. V. Miller, Trans.) (pp. 1–629).

New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published in 1807)

Hopkinson, D. (2012). Titanic: Voices from the disaster. Scholastic Inc.

Hughes, C., Perrier, M., & Kramer, A. (2009). Plaisir, jouissance and other forms of

pleasure: exploring the intellectual development of the student.

Hymes, D. (1974). Ways of speaking. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in

the Ethnography of Speaking (2nd ed., pp. 433–452). Cambridge, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Jouissance. (2017). In Oxford Living Dictionaries. Retrieved December 11, 2017, from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/jouissance

Kirkland, D. E. (2008). “ The rose that grew from concrete”: Postmodern blackness and

new English education. English Journal.

Kojève, A. (1969). Introduction to the reading of Hegel. (A. Bloom, Ed., J. H. J. Nichols,

Trans.) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

234

Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in poetic language. (M. Waller, Trans.) New York, NY:

Columbia University Press.

Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva reader. (T. Moi, Ed.) New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular.

Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lacan, J. (1981). The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-analysis. W. W. Norton &

Company.

Lacan, J. (1992). Seminar VII: The ethics of psychoanalysis 1959-1960. (J. Miller, Ed., R.

Grigg, Trans.) (pp. 1–351). New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

Lacan, J. (2006). Écrits. (B. Fink, Trans.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

(Original work published 1966)

Lacan, J. (2007). Seminar XVII: The other side of psychoanalysis 1969-1970. (J. Miller,

Ed., R. Grigg, Trans.) New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. (Original work

published 1991)

Lacan, J. (2014). Seminar X: Anxiety 1962-1963. (J. Miller, Ed., A. R. Price, Trans.)

Malden, MA: Polity Press. (Original work published 2004)

Leander, K., & Boldt, G. (2013). Rereading “A pedagogy of multiliteracies”: Bodies,

texts, and emergence. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(1), 22–46.

Lemke, J. L. (2013). Thinking about feeling: Affect across literacies and lives. In O.

Erstad & J. Sefton-Green (Eds.), Identity, Community, and Learning Lives in the

Digital Age (pp. 57–69). New York, NY.

235

Lewis, C., & Crampton, A. (2016). Literacies, Emotion, and the Teaching/Learning

Body, 1–17.

Lewis, T. E. (2010). Paulo Freire“s last laugh: Rethinking critical pedagogy’s funny bone

through Jacques Rancière. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(5-6).

Marsh, J. (2000). Teletubby tales: Popular culture in the early years language and

literacy curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood.

Marx, K. (1962). Alienated Labor. In E. Fromm (Ed.), T. B. Bottomore (Trans.), Marx’s

Concept of Man (Vol. 23, pp. 93–109). New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing.

Mitchell, J. C. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In Ethnographic research: A guide

to general conduct, 238–241.

Newmann, F. (1981). Reducing student alienation in high schools: Implications of theory.

Harvard Educational Review, 51(4), 546–564.

Oldfather, P., & Dahl, K. (1994). Toward a social constructivist reconceptualization of

intrinsic motivation for literacy learning. Perspectives in Reading Research No.

Pilky, D. (2000). Captain Underpants and the perilous plot of Professor Poopypants.

New York: Scholastic Inc.

Puybaret, E. (2005). Sweet Home 3D [Software].

Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. (S. Corcoran, Ed. & Trans.)

(pp. 1–236). New York: Continuum.

Schutz, A. (1970). On phenomenology and social relations. (H. R. Wagner, Ed.).

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

236

Sheridan, A. (2001). Translator's note. (pp. viii–xi). In J. Lacan, Écrits. New York:

Routledge.

Shuman, A. (1986). Storytelling rights. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sidorkin, A. M. (2004). In the event of learning: Alienation and participative thinking in

education. Educational Theory, 54(3), 251–262.

Smagorinsky, P., Daigle, E. A., O'Donnell-Allen, C., & Bynum, S. (2010). Bullshit in

academic writing: A protocol analysis of a high school senior's process of

interpreting Much Ado About Nothing. Research in the Teaching of English,

368–405.

Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002). “Reading don't fix Nn Chevys”: Literacy in the

lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University

Press.

Vološinov, V. N. (1986). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. (L. Matejka & I. R.

Titunik, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky. (R. W. Rieber & A. S.

Carton, Eds.). New York: Plenum Press.

Wachowski, L., & Wachowski, L. (1999). The Matrix. Warner Bros.

237

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the

amount and breadth or their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3),

420–432.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., & McGough, K. (1996). A questionnaire measure of

children's motivations for reading.

Wilhelm, J. D. (2013). The power of pleasure: What about helping students forge their

own reading lives? Voices From the Middle, 21(1), 56–58.

Wohlwend, K. E. (2008). Play as a literacy of possibilities: Expanding meanings in

practices, materials, and spaces. Language Arts, 86(2), 127–136.

Wolcott, H. F. (1987). On ethnographic intent. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler (Eds.),

Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and abroad. Hillsdale, New

Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Woods, D., & Fassnacht, C. (2018). Transana v3.21. Madison, WI: Spurgeon Woods

LLC. Retrieved from https://transana.com

Young, R. (1981). Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader.

Yuill, C. (2011). Forgetting and remembering alienation theory. History of the Human

Sciences, 24(2), 103–119.

Žižek, S. (1989). The Sublime Object of Ideology. New York: Verso.

Žižek, S. (2002). For they know not what they do: Enjoyment as a political factor (pp. 1–

200). New York: Verso.

Žižek, S. (2003). The puppet and the dwarf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Žižek, S. (2005). The Metastases of Enjoyment. New York: Verso.

238

Žižek, S. (2006). The parralax view. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

239

Appendix A: Transcript Conventions

Symbol Meaning (1.5) pause, timed .. hold/micropause … pause, untimed ((Words)) Analyst’s comments on discourse, body language, context, etc. ? question mark is used when it is evident discourse was meant as a question ↑ rising intonation; could be a question but not necessarily ↓ falling intonation CAPITAL LETTERS loud volume @ laughter; one @ for each punch of laughter - stopped discourse; often occurs after interruptions or before self-correction marked stress _underlined letters_ volume decrease degree signs overlapping speech [Words] x unclear word X unclear word (loud) ((…)) ellipsis ((unintelligible)) unclear line >words< speeded up delivery slowed down delivery

240

Appendix B: Will’s Full Interview Transcript

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 1 ((Interview is conducted outside of Mrs. Green’s room in an open auditorium at a table. Will sits on one side of the table and Robert on the other with the audio recorder in the middle.)) 2 ((Preliminary instructions.)) 1 3 Robert: and Will 4 how old are you? 5 Will: uh 6 twelve 7 Robert: twelve 8 okay 9 uhmm 2 10 Robert: Will 11 what’s your favorite thing to do? 12 Will: probably play football 13 Robert: football 14 Will: my second would probably be videogames 15 Robert: okay 16 what kind of 17 uhh 18 well first of all 19 what position do you want to play in football? 20 or do you play? 21 Will: uhh 22 running back 23 but sometimes 24 on defense I’d play cornerback 25 Robert: okay 26 which one do you like better? 27 Will: uhh 28 probably running back 29 Robert: running 30 so you gonna try to play next year? 31 Will: yeah 32 umm 33 we’re practicing already 34 Robert: oh 35 do they have spring football? 36 Will: well no

241

37 I’ve been like working out and stuff 38 Robert: oh 39 good for you 40 awesome 41 so you doing pushups and stuff 42 Will: yeah 43 Robert: how many pushups you up to 44 Will: uhmmm 45 this morning think I did a 180 something 46 couple sets xxxxxxxxxxx 47 Robert: you serious? 48 Will: yeah 49 I did four sets of thirty 50 and then xxxxxxxxx 51 Robert: how many can you do at once? 52 Will: ummm 53 I haven’t really tried 54 but like 55 I think at one point 56 like last year 57 I got to a hundred without 58 without… 59 Robert: stopping 60 Will: yeah 61 stopping 62 Robert: wow:::: 63 you got to let me know 64 try it again 65 and let me know many you can get 66 boy I think 67 the most I ever got 68 was right around 69 I don’t think I ever got up to a hundred 70 maybe right around eighty 71 hundred is good 72 that’s really good 73 strength isn’t necessarily about being big 74 Will: yeah 75 mental strength 76 Robert: yeah 77 mental strength 78 and then just being um

242

79 cuz you’ll see some of those big weightlifters 80 who don’t have what they call uhh 81 useable strength 82 Will: yeah 83 Robert: so in other words they’re huge 84 but if you ask them to do anything 85 they can’t really do it 86 so pushups and stuff 87 good for you 3 88 uhmm 89 videogames 90 what kind of videogames do you like? 91 Will: probably like Black Ops 2 92 Halo 93 Robert: so like shooter games 94 Will: yeah, like shooters 4 95 Robert: and what kinda 96 what kinda books do you like? 97 Will: uhmmm 98 I like the 99 like 100 fiction 101 like adventures 102 type books 103 action kinda books 5 104 Robert: so what have you been reading in class 105 for your outsider reading book right now? 106 Will: uhh 107 Ranger’s Apprentice 108 it’s like a 109 it’s kinda like 110 wha- 111 it- 112 what got me reading it 113 is like 114 it’s kinda like one of my videogames 115 Robert: okay 116 Will: and you can like 117 make me have connections 118 to uhh 119 what I played before 120 like it keeps me interested in it

243

121 Robert: yeah↑ 122 what’s it about? 123 Will: it’s like this uhh 124 kid who decides to be a ranger’s apprentice 125 like a ranger’s apprentice 126 Robert: by ranger do you mean like a park ranger 127 or like an army ranger? 128 Will: this is like medieval times 129 he has like a bow 130 and swords and stuff 131 Robert: oh cool 132 Will: It makes me think of my game Skylanders 133 so it 134 like 135 right now 136 I just read a book 137 and there’s one part at the very end 138 it had you defeat this evil creature 139 Robert: uh-huh 140 Will: and like 141 he somehow defeated it 142 by shooting a bow into like flames 143 and then straight into its chest 144 and caught on fire 145 Robert: and so this is similar to that then? 146 Will: yeah 147 Robert: so it’s medieval 148 is it almost fantasy fiction 149 or is there some realism in it 150 kinda like historical fiction? 151 Will: uhh yeah 152 kinda fantasy 153 but 154 Robert: kinda historical fiction 155 Will: yeah, kinda 156 but 157 it has like a bunch a like creatures 158 like hogs and stuff 159 that are here right now 160 but it also has like stuff 161 that would never be in this world 162 Robert: okay

244

163 so it would be kinda a mix? 164 that’s pretty neat 6 165 umm 166 what is your 167 okay we’re going move on here a little bit 168 what is your favorite school subject? 169 Will: probably… 170 uhmm 171 science 172 Robert: science↑ 173 okay 174 and why do you like science? 175 Will: because 176 I like uhh 177 I like to uhh 178 learn about atoms and stuff 179 like uhh 180 I also can’t wait to like mix 181 like mix 182 mix certain stuff together 183 like with containers and stuff 184 I don’t know how to explain it though 185 Robert: so are you excited about doing the experiments and stuff? 186 Will: yeah 187 I like doing experiments 188 experiments 189 Robert: and who do you have for science right now? 190 Will: Miss Jones 191 Robert: now do you get your best grades in science? 192 Will: uhmm 193 I think I get my better grades in social studies 7 194 Robert: ok 195 um 196 now what… 197 um let me put it this way 198 where does language arts rank 199 um 200 on your scale of favorites 201 Will: probably second 202 Robert: second? 203 so science 204 language arts

245

205 Will: and then probably social studies 206 Robert: and then Math at the bottom? 207 Will: yeah 8 208 Robert: now who was your teacher last year? 9 209 or 210 first of all 211 what school did you attend last year? 212 Will: uh 213 Rapid Falls 214 Robert: okay 8 215 and then who was your uh 216 language arts teacher? 217 Will: well we had like one teacher for 218 every subject 219 so our teacher was Mrs. Henry 220 Robert: Henry 221 okay 222 what kinda writing did you do 223 in Mrs. Henry’s class 224 last year 225 Will: uhmm 226 we kinda did like a lota writing 227 like stories 228 and 229 fiction 230 non-fiction writing 231 fantasies 232 Robert: okay 233 Will: we wrote po- 234 some poems too 235 I can’t remember them though 10 236 Robert: now did you like the writing you did for the most part in her class? 237 Will: uhh 238 yeah 239 Robert: what is one 240 maybe one assignment 241 that stands out from last year 242 Will: uhmmm 243 uhmmm 244 I’m not really sure 245 I don’t really remember all the things that we did

246

246 like I can’t really think of one that just pops out 247 they were all like equal 11 248 Robert: okay 249 alright 250 uhmm 251 now in your own words 252 can you give me a definition of writing? 253 Will: ahhmn 254 probably 255 like writ- 256 like writing- 257 definition of writing↑ 258 Robert: yeah 259 like what is writing? 260 what do you think writing is? 261 Will: probably writing down 262 putting down 263 what’s in your mind on a piece of paper with a pencil or anything you chose to write with 264 like making stories or 265 making connections on a sheet of paper 266 or whatever you write on 267 Robert: okay 268 alright 269 excellent 270 so is- 271 do you think a text message 272 is that writing? 273 Will: yeah 274 Robert: yeah? 275 now what about the Keynote presentation you guys did 276 or- 277 you did the uhh… 278 Will: Garage Band 279 Robert: Garage Band 280 do you think that’s a form of 281 not necessarily the Garage Band part of it 282 but do you think the project was a form of writing? 283 Will: yeah 284 Robert: alright 285 alright 286 um

247

287 so writing can have maybe a bigger definition that just writing 12 288 what kind of writings do you do outside of school? 289 Will: outside of school? 290 well 291 sometimes 292 I don’t… 293 I don’t really think I write too much out of school 294 cuz like writing is not really my 295 what I like to do a lot 296 I like to draw more than write 297 Robert: okay 298 so do you draw at home some? 299 Will: yeah 300 Robert: okay 301 whaddu like to draw 302 Will: uhmm 303 probably stuff from like games 304 recently I just drew like a character from it 305 Robert: okay cool 306 alright 307 so like kinda action 308 Will: yeah 309 I like to draw cars sometimes too though 310 Robert: cars? 311 Will: yeah 312 Robert: yeah 313 what’s your favorite car? 314 Will: probably a Lamborghini 315 Robert: ohhhh 316 umm 317 they’re fast 318 a new one just came out 319 it’s like uh- 320 the most expensive car in the world I guess 321 there’s like one of them 322 uhmm 323 I was gonna buy it 324 but I decided not to 325 Will: @@@@ 13 326 Robert: uhmm 327 this is a very simple question

248

328 uh - do you like writing? 329 Will: well I don’t really like writing 330 but sometimes I get interested into it 331 like whatever I’m writing about 332 I start like get interested into it 333 and want to keep writing 334 like it will hook me onto it 335 but I don’t necessarily like it 336 Robert: okay 337 so umm 338 it would depend on the topic? 339 Will: yeah 340 Robert: okay 341 alright 342 kinda using that 343 so depending on the topic 14 344 Robert: so looking back over the course of your entire uh 345 let's call it your academic career, okay? 346 so from kindergarten to six- to right now 347 to sixth grade- 348 can you think of one writing project 349 that stands out in your mind as- 350 you just loved it 351 Will: probably in the uhh sixth grade 352 we had to write the - our Halloween project 353 I just had a lot of ideas coming into my mind 354 like what I wanted to write 355 Robert: and that was this year? 356 Will: yeah er yeah. 357 like last year but sixth grade 358 Robert: sixth grade 359 Will: the beginning of sixth grade 360 Robert: okay 361 can you explain the Halloween project to me? 362 cuz no one has ever said that before… 363 Will: you had to make a Halloween story 364 based off of like… 365 they gave you this piece of paper 366 that started off with something like 367 “My…my…pro- my costume ripped 368 and he is using his brother's." 369 and you have to like describe the costume

249

370 and like what it did, 371 and like did it give you like superpowers and stuff 372 and like what would the super powers do 373 like what he used to do- 374 what he do - 375 like what did the person do with it? 376 Robert: umm-hmm 377 Will: like new characters you could make in the book 378 or like report 379 or like writing 380 so like you could basically do whatever you want 381 it just had to go along with the beginning paper. 382 Robert: with the…kinda the prompt? 383 Will: yeah-yeah 384 Robert: neat 385 can you tell me - can you describe your uh - your story for me? 386 Will: uh… 387 Robert: as much as you can remember 388 just kind of like a summary almost 389 Will: well mine - 390 mine was kinda crazy- [Mine] 391 Robert: [that's] fine 392 Will: mine like- 393 so he got the costume 394 and then it gave him superpowers 395 but it just turns out that on that da- night 396 the dog that ate his homework ate him 397 and then he… 398 the suit gave him superpowers 399 so he like somehow blasted out of the dog 400 but the dog turned into like a man-eating dog 401 and reproduced 402 and they were all over the world 403 so he had to stop it 404 and then he ended up nuking the world to destroy all of them 405 Robert: @@@@@@@@ 406 Will: except he was the only one tha- that survived 407 cuz he was the only one with the suit on 408 so no one else survived 409 Robert: so then the whole world ended, huh?

250

410 Will: yeah, I guess so. 411 Robert: or hu- 412 I guess I should say humans ended 413 Will: yeah 414 Robert: the world probably keep going on, huh? 415 uhh neat neat 416 do you remember how many pages that was? 417 Will: I think maybe two or three 418 Robert: two or three? 419 yeah? 420 and is that one of the ones you kept going on? 421 Will: yeah 422 Robert: like you got hooked and kept writing↑ 423 neat 424 very cool 425 alright um 426 so lets say out of 427 now I didn’t know about that Halloween project 428 that’s pretty neat 15 429 out of these three other projects I’m going to ask you about 430 specifically from Mrs. Green’s class this year 431 uh you guys did a um 432 a short story about Wonder 433 about the bully who went to a new school 434 you guys did a Outsiders fan fiction 435 and you just did the Keynote 436 or you did the Garage Band 437 okay 438 out of those three 439 which one did you enjoy the most 440 Will: I probably enjoyed The Outsiders the most 441 because my mom could relate to it 442 because that was like her favorite uhh movie 443 Robert: OH 444 NO WAY 445 when she was growing up? 446 Will: yeah 447 she liked loved that movie 448 Robert: neat 449 Will: so she could like- 450 relate to like-

251

451 we got to watch the movie with her 452 and we got to see a lot of stuff 453 that she had already seen before 454 so she could help us with a lot of stuff xxxxxxx 455 Robert: now why does your mom like the movie so much? 456 or why did she like that book so much 457 did she tell you? 458 Will: well, she just like saw the movie once 459 and liked it a lot 460 and it’s one of her favorite movies 461 Robert: neat 462 now what did you write for The Outsiders 463 or for the fan fiction 464 for the assignment 465 Will: uhmm 466 I can’t really remember 467 all I remember is that I was like annotating the book 468 like finding all the stuff 469 I can’t really remember the project 470 Robert: did you pick 471 like uhh 472 an epilogue 473 like did you do the end of it 474 or did you pick a chapter in the middle to change? 475 Will: uhmm 476 I think I picked a chapter in the- 477 I really don’t know 478 I- 479 Robert: not sure↑ 480 Will: you’re making me think I picked a chapter in the middle 481 but I’m not really sure 482 Robert: okay 483 I mean that was four or five months ago so 484 Will: oh wait 485 I remember what I did 486 uhmm 487 I did this thing 488 like they were in the barn this one time 489 and the cops 490 I made it 491 I made a part where 492 like the cops were looking for them

252

493 and then they came inside the barn 494 and searched it 495 so they had 496 to hide 497 and at one point the cops got really close to where they were hiding 498 Robert: do you mean the church? 499 when they were hiding out? 500 Will: yeah 501 Robert: yeah 502 I - 503 Robert: it does kinda seem like a barn 504 cuz no one’s in there 505 umm 506 and the cops came in 507 but they didn’t find them 508 Will: yeah 509 Robert: so was it pretty suspenseful? 510 Will: yeah 511 Robert: neat 512 alright 513 very cool 514 uh now why did you chose to do that 515 do you remember 516 did you think there was just something missing 517 Will: uhmm 518 I just wanted to do that because 519 it seemed like that chapter 520 like around that part of the story 521 was kinda boring 522 a little bit 523 so I just wanted to add something 524 cool or just suspenseful to make it seem more exciting 525 to keep you interested in the book 526 Robert: uh that makes a lot of sense 527 actually that was one of the parts 528 that was just kinda like… 529 Will: xxxxxxx 530 Robert: yeah 531 the book was very suspenseful 532 I thought 533 Will: yeah

253

534 Robert: it was a good book 535 but that part was kind of a lull 536 Will: yeah 16 537 Robert: uhmm alright 538 I have I think two more questions for you 539 how do you see yourself 540 if you need me to re-explain this question I can 541 but I’m going to ask it first 542 how do you see yourself as a writer? 543 kinda what’s your sense of yourself as a writer? 544 Will: like uhh 545 Robert: how do you view yourself as a writer 546 like say compared to your classmates 547 Will: uhmm, 548 I think like 549 I write a little bit more action stuff 550 and a little bit more people - 551 like mine is more excit- 552 is exciting 553 or has a little bit too much excitement 554 to it 555 Robert: okay 556 umm 17 557 do you consider yourself a good 558 medium 559 bad writer? 560 Will: I’d probably say in between good and medium 561 Robert: okay 562 so on an average of one to ten 563 waddu think? 564 Will: probably like a seven or eight- 565 or eight 566 Robert: uhmm 18 567 so if although 568 you said earlier that writing is not necessarily what you like to do 569 but you feel com- 570 say for example Monday you came to school 571 and Ms. Applebee gave you a uhh 572 lets say it’s a three page paper 573 that’s going to be due on Friday 574 umm

254

575 would you freak out or would you feel pretty confident that you could finish it 576 Will: like could we write anything about it? 577 Robert: yeah 578 lets say you could write anything about it 579 Will: I would probably be confident about it 580 Robert: now what would happen if it was about something that you didn’t enjoy 581 say 582 what’s something you really hate 583 Will: probably soccer 584 Robert: okay 585 so what if it had to be- 586 is that cuz your sister plays soccer? 587 Will: uhh that 588 and I don’t 589 I’m not good at it 590 Robert: alright 591 um 592 what if you had to write a report about soccer? 593 Will: uhmm I’d probably be- 594 I’d probably still be okay with it 595 because I could add some stuff 596 to make it a little bit better 597 like 598 if it had to be something good about soccer 599 it would be as fun 600 but if it could be anything good or bad 601 I just make a story out of it 602 Robert: okay 603 makes sense 604 so you wouldn’t be freaking out 605 if you got an assignment 606 that’s good cuz being able to write 607 whether you like it- 608 I mean- 609 ideally you want to like what your writing 610 but it’s good just being comfortable writing 19 611 okay umm 612 what is your- 613 well, let me ask you this 614 I had asked you previously about a writing project you

255

really liked 615 like about The Outsiders 616 and then I asked how you saw yourself as a writer 617 do you think that me asking you 618 about a good memory of a writing project 619 led to a better answer 620 Will: yeah probably 20 621 Robert: yeah so for example 622 do you remember a writing project that stands out 623 could be a report or something like that 624 that you just hated 625 pulling teeth trying to finish it 626 could be this year 627 could be years past 628 Will: probably in social studies 629 we had to write an essay about four different topics 630 and we had a day to do it 631 uhh I didn’t like any of the topics 632 but I had to write an essay anyways 633 Robert: you remember what topic you ended up choosing? 634 Will: uhmm 635 it was if I were 636 if there were someone coming from a different country 637 with a different origin 638 has to come and move into our house with us for a couple weeks 639 uhh 640 and they did all they’re family stuff with you 641 uhh 642 I have to write a journal 643 I’d have to be that person and write a journal entry 644 of how it would be like for them 645 Robert: okay 646 Will: xxxxx 647 Robert: and you didn’t like that? 648 Will: no 649 Robert: no? 650 what about you didn’t like? 651 Will: well 652 I just don’t like writing like 653 like 654 in the first person

256

655 like I and stuff 21 656 Robert: okay 657 is there a certain genre you like to write 658 Will: uhmm 659 no not really 660 Robert: so if you’re writing 661 if you had to chose your own story to write 662 you would chose third person 663 so kinda like 664 “Joe went here” 665 so on and so forth 666 Will: yeah 667 Robert: and uhh 668 what kinda story would you want to tell 669 the action story↑ 670 Will: yeah 22 671 Robert: my last question is this 672 and then we’ll wrap it up 673 if there is one- 674 looking back over the last few language arts teachers you’ve had 675 okay 676 um 677 is there one piece of advice 678 you would want to give them 679 and language arts teachers in general too 680 umm 681 about how to make class 682 both more fun and better 683 not just more fun per say 684 what helps you learn the best in English 685 or in language arts class 686 Will: like 687 what would help you learn better 688 and what would be best… 689 Robert: yeah 690 like what do you enjoying doing 691 and learning at the same time 692 Will: probably 693 like uh having time to free write 694 and like write like whatever you want 695 like write a story

257

696 and like being able t- 697 not having to write a story about a certain thing 698 like writing a story about whatever you want 699 Robert: so having the choice to write 700 Will: yeah 701 Robert: k 702 uhmm 703 excellent 704 so do you find that when you have some choice 705 so for example 706 The Outsider’s fan fiction 707 okay 708 so there was definitely- 709 I mean you had to write about The Outsiders right? 710 but you also had some choice 711 is that enough choice or would you prefer complete choice 712 Will: that was probably enough choice 713 like 714 maybe just a little bit more of what you want to do 715 a little bit more choice 716 Robert: but you’re okay with it tied to your reading 717 Will: yeah 23 718 Robert: thank you very much 719 do you have any questions for me 720 Will: no 721 Robert: appreciate it 722 have a good day 723 Will: you too 724 Robert: thanks↑

258

Appendix C: Harper’s Interview

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 1 ((Interview is conducted outside of Mrs. Green’s room in an open auditorium at a table. Harper sits on one side of the table and Robert on the other with the audio recorder in the middle.)) 2 ((Preliminary instructions.)) 1 3 Robert: let's start right at the top here 4 what school did you attend before Memorial? 5 Harper: I went to Rapid Falls 6 Robert: so just… ((Robert points east at the adjacent building on the same grounds as Memorial Middle School.)) 7 Harper: yeah 8 Robert: right at that school↑ ((Robert continues pointing east towards Rapid Falls Elementary.)) 9 Harper: just right over there 10 yeah 11 Robert: perfect… 12 and then 13 is that K through 5? 14 Harper: yeah 15 Robert: so is that the only elementary school that leads into Memorial? 16 Harper: no 17 it's like Creekside, Franklin, 18 it's a bunch 19 Boulder, Greenlawn… 2 20 Robert: who was your language arts teacher last year? 21 Harper Mrs. Davis. 3 22 Robert: what is your favorite activity to do in general? 23 Harper: softball 24 Robert: what is your favorite position? 25 Harper: second base 4 26 Robert: what is your favorite music? 27 Harper: One Direction

259

5 28 Robert: what is your favorite school subject? 29 Harper: language arts 6 30 Robert: do you like reading or writing better? 31 Harper: um, I don't know 32 I kinda like them the same because reading 33 it kinda gives me ideas to write 34 but then writing xxxxxx 35 Robert: helps you understand? 36 Harper: like whoa 37 Harper: I might like a book about that 38 Robert: so it kinda feeds into each other? 39 Harper: yeah 40 Robert: do you ever see that in other subjects too? 41 Harper: sometimes 42 like in social studies I can write about something I've read 7 43 I like historical fiction a lot so that xxxxxx 44 Robert: what is your favorite historical fiction book? 45 Harper: I don't know 46 I read so many 47 I can't even remember 48 Robert: what time period? 49 Harper: umm… 50 I like the Titanic a lot 51 Robert: so you liked that before even this unit? 52 Harper: yeah 53 I knew a lot about it before 54 Robert: have you ever read this book then? 55 Harper: no 56 I hadn't read that book 57 Robert: how do you like this book? 58 Harper: it was pretty good 59 I like that it was more nonfiction than it was... 60 Robert: than fiction? 61 Harper: yeah 62 Robert: but it still kinda told a story about it 63 didn't it?

260

64 Harper: yeah, it did 65 sort of a story but sort of nonfiction 66 Robert: gotcha 8 67 so do you think the best subject- 68 and it doesn't necessarily have to be grade-wise 69 do you think your best subject in school is language arts too? 70 Harper: yeah 71 I was in advanced language arts class since third grade. 72 Robert: and so… 73 this is just- 74 there is no tracking in this class 75 Harper: no 9 76 Robert: last year- 77 did you write a lot in your language arts class? 78 Harper: I don't know 79 we would like read a book. 80 and then answer questions about it for a while 81 but not a lot of writing 82 Robert: so more answering questions 83 Harper: yeah 10 84 Robert: so what's the big difference between the classroom now and last year? 85 Harper: there's a lot more creativity in it 86 like you can write and not have to follow a certain rubric that tells you how to do this 87 Robert: gotcha 88 so it's much less structured? 89 Harper: uhh...yeah 90 Robert: or it's much less question and answer? 91 Harper: yeah 92 I like it a lot better 93 it's less question and answer and more like 94 well why don't you… 95 what do you think about that? 11 96 Robert: if you had to give a definition of writing 97 what would it be?

261

98 Harper: using your creativity to make a story 99 but if it's not really creative writing 100 I don't really know 101 Robert: so for example 102 if you write something on Instagram or Facebook 103 or write a text to one of your friends 104 is that writing? 105 Harper: yeah it's writing, but… 106 I don't know 107 Robert: yeah 108 you don't think of it as writing 109 do you? 110 Harper: no you don't. 111 but it is, I guess… 112 it's hard 113 it's like… 114 I don't know 115 it's hard 116 Robert: no, it is 117 I don't really even think of it that way 118 Harper: but it is though 119 when you think about it, it is though 12 120 Robert: when do you write? 121 I mostly write in class 122 Harper: but sometimes when I'm bored I'll write my own stuff… 123 but not really 124 Robert: so mostly in class or for class type of deal? 125 Harper: yeah. 126 Robert: so you don't think you do a lot of writing outside of school? 127 well like texting 128 Harper: but again 129 that's new to me as writing. 130 Robert: but you don't 131 say 132 write stories outside of school 133 or things like that?

262

134 Harper: no 135 not unless I'm really bored 136 Robert: but when you're in class 137 you like doing that, though? 138 Harper: yeah↑ 139 creative writing is my favorite 13 140 Robert: when you are in the class 141 do you write in pencil? 142 do you usually type? 143 Harper: I kind of do everything 144 I prefer typing 145 I don't know why 146 I just write better when I'm typing 147 but then I'll also write with a pencil 148 like for my first rough draft and stuff 149 and then for my second draft I'll type it 150 because, I don't know… 151 I write better when I'm typing 152 and then my final is always typing 153 sometimes my second is writing 154 Robert: and is that a requirement then? 155 Harper: that is not a requirement 156 that is what I like to do personally 157 Robert: so in your class 158 if you wanted to 159 you could turn in a handwritten final draft? 160 Harper: yeah as long as easy enough to read. 161 Robert: I remember that as a teacher 162 a couple of my students were not allowed to turn in handwritten drafts 163 Harper: yeah 164 I'm like them 165 my handwriting- 166 cuz I'll like get an idea 167 and then just start going really fast 168 cuz I don't want to forget it 169 Robert: yeah

263

170 which is great 171 Harper: impossible to read. 14 172 Robert: do you ever write things down to make them clearer in your head? 173 Harper: sometimes 174 like I'm in this play, Cats 175 and there is this one part where we're all talking instead of singing 176 and so normally I can put the words with the music and it's easy 177 but there is this one scene where we are all talking 178 and I couldn't remember the words 179 so I wrote it down to memorize it 180 I wrote each sentence three times and then I went on to the next one 181 Robert: and it helped you memorize it? 182 Harper: yeah 183 now I know the whole thing 184 Robert: ohh, awesome…awesome 185 but the music helped you though, then? 186 Harper: yeah 187 you could put the music and the words together 188 but when there is no music then it's harder 189 Robert: is this the first play you've done? 190 Harper: in third grade I was a munchkin for The Wizard of Oz 191 Robert: what part do you have for Cats? 192 Harper: I'm in the gummy cat trio 193 it's the fourth scene I want to say 194 Robert: are you looking forward to doing this again next year? 195 Harper: umm…I don't know 196 maybe 197 the practices now 198 as we're getting closer to the play 199 are long 15 200 Robert: looking back at all the writing you've done 201 even back like in elementary school 202 alright

264

203 umm 204 what is like one like project 205 or like story 206 that really stands- 207 like your favorite 208 like you loved doing it 209 (0.1) 210 Harper: um in third grade 211 my teacher 212 he gave us these pictures 213 and I donno↓ 214 I forget what they're called 215 you might have heard of'um 216 but there is like a name for'um 217 somebody like- 218 there is a story behind it 219 can barely remember but 220 umm↓ 221 this guy like drew'um 222 and he was gonna put 'em into a book 223 and he like 224 like the rough draft of the book 225 I don't know what it's called 226 [the] 227 Robert: [um-hum] 228 Harper: yeah 229 and uhh- 230 with the pictures 231 and then when he was gonna get it printed 232 something happened 233 and like just the pictures remained 234 and something happened to him or some[thing] 235 Robert: [huh↑] 236 Harper: and so it was just the pictures 237 and they were like these weird pictures 238 like there is one of like a cruise ship 239 in the middle of the (.4) canal in Italy

265

240 >I think it's Italy< 241 I don't know what it's called either° 242 but ummm 243 Robert: oh, like Venice↑ 244 Harper: yeah [yeah like Venice] 245 Robert: [yeah yeah (yeah)] 246 Harper: yeah 247 the Venice thing 248 and then umm it's like this huge cruise ship 249 and so he gave us these pictures 250 and everybody got to choose one 251 and then you wrote a story about it 252 and um 253 so the only thing you had to come off of it like 254 (.) 255 Robert: was the pic[ture] 256 Harper: [was the picture] 257 yeah 258 and so that was really cool [to-] 259 Robert: [that's ] awesome 260 Harper: and the stories were really fun 261 like some of them were like serious 262 and like a mystery 263 like mine was a mystery. 264 but then there were some of them 265 that were really goofy 266 like my friend Danielle wrote about a duck 267 Robert: yeah 268 Harper: but it was a cruise ship 269 like it was just 270 like whatever you thought of 271 Robert: uh-huh 272 Harper: and so like she wrote about a duck 273 on a cruise ship 274 in middle of Italy 275 but I wrote like a mystery 276 like how did the ship get there

266

277 and stuff like that 278 so it was really funny to see how some kids reacted 279 Robert: yeah yeah 280 that's pretty clever 281 yeah 282 Harper: it was really cool 283 he was a great teacher 284 Robert: that's awesome 285 that's pretty neat 286 what is a whole book then? 287 did you put your stories together? 288 Harper: yeah, it's like a picture book. 289 oh…no 290 I don't know if we put them together 291 Robert: so you had to pick out one picture to write your story on? 292 Harper: yeah 293 you picked out one picture. 294 there was like a whole picture book of these 295 it was a book-book 296 it was published and everything with just these pictures 297 and he copied them and we each got… 298 and there was enough of them for everyone to get one 299 so we would like pick them 300 and we got to write about them 16 301 Robert: what is the favorite thing you have done so far in Mrs. Green's class this year… 302 writing-wise? 303 Harper: ummmmm… 304 probably the um 305 we wrote the last… 306 after The Outsiders 307 we wrote fan fiction 308 Robert: okay 309 Harper: so I took the characters 310 and I like made um one of the last chapters 311 like another chapter after that 312 and like my friend Lily

267

313 she rewrote the whole chapter from Johnny's point of view… 314 instead of Ponyboy's 315 Robert: oh:: no way↑ 316 so that was cool 317 she didn't finish the whole thing because it was a whole chapter 318 but I just did like two pages 319 but that was fun, because we got to like take the characters 320 and I added a couple new characters 321 Robert: so what did you add? 322 could you explain? 323 Harper: mine was like the scene inside their kitchen 324 and there were new characters from the gang 325 it was just a scene inside their kitchen 326 everything being okay after all that happened 327 cuz I kinda felt like- 328 I don't know- 329 is Ponyboy okay? 330 like what happened after that? 331 Robert: yeah 332 Harper: So I just made a scene that even ((“after”)) all that happened 333 they’re still okay and like moving on 334 Robert: yeah 335 it was kind of a traumatic ending 336 Harper: yeah 337 Robert: so when you guys ((sic)) were writing those xxxxxxx 338 from what I understand, 339 you guys wrote them all in class 340 right? 341 for the most part? 342 Harper: yeah 343 for the most part in class 344 Robert: so did you read Lily's? 345 Harper: I didn't read hers

268

346 but she like ran by me what she was going to do 347 I read the first two pages before she was done 348 and so it was really cool how she described… 349 it was the chapter when they first drove to the church xxxxxx 350 he described like Johnny going into the store 351 and there was like a blonde 352 she like made the cashier a blonde 353 and like she made him say like 354 "oh, Two-bit should be here cuz he likes blondes." 355 they said that about him earlier in the book 356 Robert: ahhh… 357 Harper: so like, it was cool how she tied together stuff 358 so it didn't just seem like she was just writing something from Johnny's point of view 359 and the next chapter he says something about how Dally should have been there 360 because there were no alarms or anything if something was stolen 361 and so she like had him thinking that when he was in the store 362 and then he tells Ponyboy that later 363 Robert: gotcha 364 yeah 365 that's a pretty good job of back to the book 366 and using characterization from earlier 367 Harper: yeah, she's a pretty good writer 17 368 Robert: if you could say one thing to all the language arts teachers in the world 369 what would your advice be? 370 if I was talking to my teacher last year 371 the question and answer thing I know that was hard for me 372 I like to be more creative and be able to write what I want to write 373 but then she had if you answer this question you get one point plus this is two plus this is three

269

374 so she had a very structured… 375 like… 376 "okay, you do this and then you do this and then you do this" 377 I found that hard 378 you know 379 but my friends in that class did too 380 I don't know if it was just hard in general 381 if it was like how she taught 382 if it was tough to do or some people are like that 383 but I know that was hard for me 384 like the structuredness 18 385 Robert: do you find that you know the stories better this year or last year? 386 Harper: yeah 387 this year 388 definitely 389 Robert: so even though you might have focused more on question and answers last year 390 you find getting into the text through creativity has let you understand better? 391 Harper: yeah 392 know and wonder charts… 393 she didn't not let us annotate and like do stuff like that 394 but it wasn't an option she gave us 395 we had to think of that on our own when we were reading that book 396 we're just in fifth grade- 397 we're not going to think of something like that 398 And I know that kinda helps me and I can go back and like 399 "okay, so I'm wondering this, let's see if I'm gonna learn the answer to it today” 400 but we didn't do that 401 Robert: so you like the know wonder chart? 402 Harper: yeah I liked that 403 so we're wondering this

270

404 what am I gonna know today and stuff like that 405 xxxxxx stuff like that we didn't do last year 19 406 Robert: in your opinion 407 what do you think the most important thing to learn to become a good writer 408 when you're writing 409 what do you think the most important thing to work on? 410 Harper: probably if I'm writing something with certain facts in it 411 like I have include something 412 then I have to know those facts in order to add those 413 like you can't just think you know everything and you're going to write a story 414 like you have to kind of do a little bit of research 415 and like know what you're writing about 416 cuz like when we read Wonder 417 there's this kid named Julian and he was like a jerk 418 and we had to write a story about him in his new school 419 and so like if I hadn't of read 420 if I didn't read that book 421 and then Mrs. Green asked me to write a story about a mean kid who goes to a new school 422 I probably would have done something totally different than what I had did 423 I kinda knew his personality and like what he would do 424 and I knew like Julian's Mom was mean too 425 so I like included her in my story and stuff like that. 426 but if Mrs. Green just said write something about mean kid I would have written something totally different 427 but with history of being mean to somebody who had 428 not a disability 429 but was different 430 I included that 431 like there was a kid in a wheelchair in my story 432 and I probably wouldn't have done that if I didn't know him 433 Robert: do you have a copy of that story? 434 Harper: xxxxxx

271

435 yeah 436 I turned it in 437 but it had a lot of mistakes in it 438 so we had the choice of re-doing it to get more credit 439 and so I just turned a copy in. 20 440 Robert: looking at yourself as a writer 441 how do you feel- 442 say in comparison to your classmates 443 how do you feel as a writer 444 I guess… 445 do you look at yourself as a writer? 446 Harper: I don't know 447 kind of, but not really 448 like my friends are like 449 "Oh, you're so good at writing" 450 and I'm like, "Oh no." 451 but I know what I do that I wish I could change 452 is that I don't like pay attention to there needs to be a period there and stuff like that 453 Robert: ummhumm 454 Harper: I get into the story and I just start writing 455 and it becomes like one long run-on sentence 456 and like that I wish I could be like 457 okay, this period, that... 458 Robert: what does Mrs. Green say about that? 459 what do you think she would say if she came to you with that? 460 Harper: I bet she'd try to help me not do that any more. 461 Robert: I think this is what she would do 462 I think she would say keep writing 463 you can always go back later 464 Harper: yeah 465 that's what I have to do 466 but I find that it takes me a lot longer than… 467 Robert: to go back? 468 Harper: yeah. 469 Robert: well

272

470 in your defense 471 that's how I would tell people to write 472 that's what I told my students to do 473 is just get it out the first time 474 cuz when you get into a story 475 it's hard to stop 476 Harper: yeah 477 Robert: so get it out the first time 478 and then you can always go back and work on punctuation and stuff like that 21 479 when you get a writing assignment 480 do you feel able to do that writing assignment? 481 do you feel anxious or nervous at all? 482 Harper: yeah- no- I feel able 483 like I know what I get worried about is that when I hear about a writing assignment I'll get so many ideas that I can't choose which one @@@@@ 484 so that's what I worry about. 485 what would I say if I do this one 486 but what would I say if I do this one? 487 so I end up writing like three stories and then turning the best one in 488 Robert: ohh, all right 489 well that's a good idea 22 490 regarding the project you guys ((sic)) are working on right now 491 you and who else went to the workshop at the tech house? 492 Ava, Zoe, and me…and I 493 Harper: I guess 494 Robert: so you guys went 495 and you guys ((sic)) are kinda in charge of teaching 496 can you explain the project to me? 497 Harper: so part of what we're doing is just trying to get used to this technology 498 but then 499 also doing something for language arts

273

500 we're just like using the technology to do a report on a problem that almost everyone has faced 501 except like hunger 502 not everyone has faced that. 503 it's pretty much all relatable topics, 504 and using the technology to share what we think about them 505 the facts we think about them 506 I picked bullying 507 but I'm doing the long-term effects of bullying 508 and it makes you depressed 509 and things like that 510 and I wondered 511 does it follow you into your adulthood 512 if you're bullied badly are you like affected later in life? 513 and I'm finding that you are 514 in big ways 515 it's not just like… 516 Robert: really? 517 so what kind of research are you finding that is showing that? 518 Harper: it's like people 519 like psychologists that are putting them on the Internet 520 there is one website that I felt kinda weird going on 521 because it's called mental health dot com 522 but it was a really good article 523 and it was a long article 524 and it was full of facts 525 and then at the end it told information about the author so I knew it was reliable. 526 it was actually a really good article. 527 but it was kind of a weird website to be on for a school thing 528 Robert: do you feel there is a stigma to mental health? 529 Harper: yeah 530 Robert: is that pretty prevalent in middle school then? 531 Harper: yeah

274

532 I think so 533 xxxxxx like if they found 534 oh why are you going to mental health dot com? 535 when first somebody sees the link mental health dot com 536 I'm like I'm doing bullying for a project 537 they think what is wrong with you 538 xxxxxxxxx 539 Robert: what are you eventually going to do for the project? 540 Harper: I'm doing a Keynote 541 I'm just doing bullets 542 I'm basically putting my notes onto the Keynote 543 and then I'm going to go into more detail talking to the class 23 544 Robert: if you could give advice to a new incoming student about writing in Mrs. Green's class 545 what would you say to focus on? 546 Harper: not like 547 well I have to get points for this 548 and then points for this… 549 don't try to like… 550 I don't know… 551 Robert: like game the system? 552 Harper: yeah 553 don't try to include stuff just cuz you know you're going to get extra points or get complimented on or something 554 just like- 555 I know I find that she is easier to talk to than most of my other teachers. 556 so I can just explain to her 557 when I said that I meant that this person said this but in the past, 558 so she might- 559 she would help me to figure out how to word that so it makes more sense. 560 Robert: so you find that you are able to talk to her pretty easily? 561 Harper: yeah, more than my other teachers 562 Robert: do you think the other students feel the same?

275

563 Harper: umm…maybe 564 I don't know 24 565 ((Interview’s closing remarks; Harper leaves the table.))

276

Appendix D: Angie, Mrs. Green, and Mrs. Lewis’s Chopsticks Interaction

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 1 1 ((Mrs. Green is holding the book Chopsticks near the back of the class next to Mrs. Lewis.)) 2 David: can I read Chopsticks? 3 Mrs. Green: no 4 I want to read it right now 5 David: you want to read it? 6 Mrs. Green: yeah 7 I need to look at it again 8 because I'm trying to figure it out 2 9 Mrs. Lewis: ((Mrs. Lewis points at a page in Chopsticks)) 10 see because then xxxxxxxxxxxx 11 Mrs. Green: umhmm 12 Mrs. Lewis: well, that makes me wonder- 13 Mrs. Green: but then what's the point of the picture 14 when she's holding the thread? 15 Mrs. Lewis: ((unintelligible)) 16 Mrs. Green: ((pointing again)) and I didn't know like 17 if he got that for her↑ 18 and he didn't know where she was 19 and he's been saving it - 20 but it's a stub though ((points to book)) 21 because what was the day that she like disappeared? 22 let me find that 23 Mrs. Green: now what is up with these books? 24 they are talking about the strings 25 and how they don't know what the purpose of it is 26 Isn't there one where there are all those news reports? 27 OH 28 wait wait wait 29 ((Mrs. Green begins to flip the pages while Mrs. Lewis is holding it.)) 30 wait 31 I think it's at the beginning 32 okay 33 so what's the date? 34 twelve six 35 okay 36 so this is the same date

277

37 Mrs. Lewis: huh 38 but then... 39 Mrs. Green: isn't there one with another stub too? 40 okay wait 41 so this is the same 42 okay this is... 43 so this is the same 44 right↑ 3 45 Mrs. Lewis: so what are they 46 why are these circled? 47 Mrs. Green: I wonder if like- 48 if he- 49 remember↑ 50 did he circle them 51 or did she circle them↑ 52 because it said- 53 remember XXXXXX 54 is that like him saying that to her↑ 55 or her saying that to him↑ 56 like him signing it 57 Mrs. Lewis: I don't know↓ 58 Mrs. Green: because yeah 59 I don't know if he circled it or she did 4 60 Mrs. Lewis: cuz to me, 61 this makes me think about heaven 62 Mrs. Green: umhum 63 Mrs. Lewis: and like- 64 Mrs. Green: that for sure 65 totally does 66 but then... 67 this was on a cruise ship though... 68 like- 69 like- 70 it could also be like a cruise ship 71 Mrs. Lewis: then where is the picture of the two of them? 72 Mrs. Green: right 73 Mrs. Lewis: I don't know 74 Mrs. Green: I'm just puzzled 75 I'm very puzzled 5 76 does she ((the author)) have other ones too? 77 Mrs. Lewis: I don’t know 78 I’m gonna check ((Mrs. Lewis grabs phone from the

278

table in front of her.)) 79 how do you spell her last name? ((Mrs. Green points to the cover as Mrs. Lewis walks to a lectern stool at the front of the classroom and begins typing on the phone.)) 6 80 Mrs. Green: and then of course 81 this leaves every possibility open 82 “what has been madness all along” ((Reading from the back cover of the book.)) 83 Mrs. Lewis: I know 7 84 Mrs. Green: who has read this? ((Mrs. Green looks up from the book and around the room.)) 85 Mrs. Lewis: Morgan↑ 86 did Morgan read it? 87 I think Angie read it 88 right↑ 89 Mrs. Green: where’s Angie? ((Mrs. Green locates Angie and begins walking toward where Angie is sitting. Mrs. Green is holding the book in her hand.)) 90 Angie 91 did you read this yet? ((Mrs. Green points to the cover of the book.)) 92 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 93 Mrs. Green: okay 94 I'm going to leave this over here 95 for you to look at 96 because Mrs. Lewis and I are (.) 97 very much trying to figure out the ending 98 so you can either- 99 you can finish that one ((Mrs. Green references the graphic novel Angie was reading for the sampling assignment.)) 100 then come to this 101 but selfishly 102 we want to have someone to talk to about it 103 because we keep going back and forth 104 and can't decide 8 105 ((From 11:58-29:24 Angie reads Chopsticks. At 17:40 Mrs. Lewis directed students to put down the graphic novel they were reading, fill out the sampling worksheet, and select a new graphic novel to sample/read. Angie walks toward Mrs. Green.)) 9 106 Angie: ((unintelligible))

279

107 Mrs. Green: oh° 108 cuz you already started to read it right° 109 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 110 Mrs. Green: okay come with Mrs. Lewis and me° 111 ((Angelina and Mrs. Green walk up to the front of the class.)) 112 okay so 113 Mrs. Lewis: whaddu think? 114 Mrs. Green: what happened? 115 Angie: well I think what happened- 116 cuz on one page near the end 117 XXXXX tickets for Argentina XXXXX 118 reports of she’s gone XXXXX 119 Mrs. Green: umhum 120 Angie: XXXXX she's gone 121 Mrs. Green: so the dates that match up 122 Angie: yeah 123 Mrs. Green: like she faked her- 124 her- 125 or like she disappeared↑ 126 or like she faked her- 127 see it's like- 128 here's my- 129 cuz we're trying to going back and forth 130 if she disappeared or she died 131 Angie: I think she disappeared 132 cuz, if it says (..) 133 [here] ((Angie points at the page.)) 134 Mrs. Green: [umhum] 135 Angie: xxxxxx there's a day on xxx 136 Mrs. Green: umhum 137 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 138 Mrs. Green: yeah like okay 139 [so] 140 Angie: [XXXX] twelve six 141 Mrs. Green: cuz it said that she (..) like- 142 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 10 143 Mrs. Green: what does it say 144 that she was last seen in her- 145 Angie: in the uh- 146 [in the robe] 147 Mrs. Lewis: [robe]

280

148 Mrs. Green: [in the] thing 149 so how did they find that then? 150 Angie: I think she might have left it there kind of on purpose 151 I dunno↓ 11 152 Mrs. Lewis: so (...) what we keep going back and forth about is (..) ((Mrs. Green directs her gaze at Angie.)) 153 if you think about her mom 154 how did her mom die 155 do you know↑ 156 Angie: I think she was in a motorcycle accident 157 Mrs. Lewis: I mean that's what it says 158 in the book 159 but I don't think that's necessarily what happened 160 Angie: yeah 161 Mrs. Green: umhum 162 Mrs. Lewis: cuz they talk about- 163 the dad talks about his friend 164 when Glory had to go 165 and check into the rest home 166 that it was the same situation as her mom 167 that there is some sort of mental illness 168 [or...] 169 Angie: [umhum] 12 170 Mrs. Green: she keeps doing the “Chopsticks” too- ((Mrs. Green flips through the book.)) 171 Angie: [umhum] 172 Mrs. Green: [okay] 173 so she's doing all this stuff 174 and then 175 okay 176 so this is the [part] 177 Angie: [She’s] obsessively playing “Chopsticks” 178 Mrs. Green: well 179 and then it said on the back 180 that “Chopsticks” 181 it's like when you do “Chopsticks” 182 F and G are close together 183 it's like their names 184 Angie: awww:: 185 Mrs. Green: yeah 186 I didn't get that 13 187 okay

281

188 so then here is my question then 189 that Mrs. Lewis can't answer 190 okay 191 so she is doing this 192 and then what is- 193 I don't understand 194 so did she- 195 did she- 196 did she like use the thread 197 to like ↑ 198 or drill- 199 [try to hurt herself] 200 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 201 xxxxxxxx is there something she tried to use to hurt herself↑ 202 Mrs. Green: they said it was not a drill 203 [and then] 204 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 205 Mrs. Lewis: [((unintelligible))] 206 Mrs. Green: this is what I don't get 207 Mrs. Lewis: [((unintelligible))] 208 Mrs. Green: so she's sitting there 209 what does she have in her hand in this part↑ 210 what's in her hand↑ 211 can you tell↑ 212 ((All three are looking down at the book.)) 213 Mrs. Lewis: it looks like a string 214 is it↑ 215 Mrs. Green: yeah it looks thick 216 Mrs. Lewis: like a cord↑ 217 Mrs. Green: I'm surprised they would let her- 218 Angie: yeah 219 have a [cord] 220 Mrs. Green: [cord] 221 so there's that 222 and then there is a close up here 223 so she's making a decision 224 and then 225 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 14 226 Mrs. Lewis: but why would they put these words on this background↑ 227 what does that symbolize↑

282

228 Angie: I was thinking that 229 like um 230 it’s like she’s running through it 231 [maybe she-] 232 Mrs. Green: oh::::::↑ 233 like running away 234 Angie: maybe she escaped using that 235 or something xxxx 15 236 Mrs. Lewis: or that's in her mind 237 what she's seeing 238 Mrs. Green: cuz on the back it says 239 "or what's been madness all along" 240 Angie: maybe she’s not trying to kill herself 241 this is what she's imagining in her wonderland 242 when she goes off with Frank 243 Mrs. Green: oh 244 so like all of this↑ ((Mrs. Green points to the book.)) 245 [is in her mi-] 246 Angie: [yeah] 247 Mrs. Green: [mind] 248 Mrs. Lewis: [mind] 249 Mrs. Green: like she loses it 250 and then she's like thinking that she- 251 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 252 so this is what it is with all of this 253 yes cuz xxxxxxxxxxx 254 Mrs. Green: so it's not that she's killed herself 255 it's not that she's gone 256 it's that she's like lost her mind 257 and she's like fantasizing 258 that this is where she's gone↑ 259 Angie: yeah 260 Mrs. Lewis: so she's just still missing↑ 261 Angie: cuz this is with the wine bottles xxxx 262 Mrs. Lewis: well to me 263 that makes me think that he's doing something 264 [xxxxxxx] 265 Mrs. Green: [he's doing well] 266 Mrs. Lewis: yeah↓ 267 Mrs. Green: right↑ 268 but then 269 Mrs. Lewis: in the end

283

270 Mrs. Green: they're 271 [together] 272 Mrs. Lewis: [together] 273 it blows my mind 274 I can't figure it out 275 Mrs. Green: no 276 so you're saying is 277 and then 278 like this 279 Angie: yeah 280 either she's still 281 [xxxxx-] 16 282 Mrs. Lewis: [and I said to Mrs. Green] 283 that one ((Mrs. Lewis points to page in book.)) 284 like the picture of them together 285 Mrs. Green: umhum 286 Mrs. Lewis: is sandwiched- 287 well 288 is kinda sandwiched between- 289 where's the sunset picture? 290 Mrs. Green: I think it's after 291 Mrs. Lewis: oh it is↑ 292 Mrs. Green: oh no wait 293 oh yeah 294 [yeah yeah] 295 Mrs. Lewis: I skipped it 296 so this to me ((Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Green locate the page.)) 297 and the flowers 298 makes me think of like heaven 299 Mrs. Green: umhum 300 Angie: yeah xxxxxx 301 Mrs. Lewis: so either 302 is that 303 like she feels like she's in heaven because they're together↑ 304 [or she is in] 305 Mrs. Green: she is 306 Angie: YEAH 307 >or maybe she didn't go crazy< 308 >maybe she actually did kill herself< 309 >and this is how she's living her life in heaven<

284

310 Mrs. Lewis: maybe↑ 17 311 [see↑] 312 Mrs. Green: [see] 313 [cuz that’s her-] 314 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 315 Mrs. Lewis: [((unintelligible))] 316 Mrs. Green: [((unintelligible))] 317 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 318 Mrs. Lewis: [((unintelligible))] 319 Mrs. Green: okay 320 [the date that she] 321 Mrs. Lewis: [I want to call the author] 322 Mrs. Green: yeah 323 the date that she disappeared 324 is the same date here 325 so maybe↓ 326 this is like 327 where she's like 328 going 329 in like heaven 330 or whatever 331 and so that's same date 332 because like this where 333 she's like 334 this her dream 335 and she's just leaving 336 and then 337 Mrs. Lewis: maybe↓ 18 338 Mrs. Green: cuz then we were even 339 like over analyzing 340 is it him saying "we will take root again" to her 341 or is this like her writing a note 342 and is it like signed 343 Mrs. Lewis: well let’s 344 did you look at this 345 Angie: oh yeah 346 Mrs. Lewis: did you look back 347 at any of the handwriting↑ 348 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 349 Mrs. Lewis: [yeah] 350 that's what I was thinking 351 Angie: I think they purposely ended it like this

285

352 [so that you-] 353 Mrs. Green: umhum 354 Mrs. Lewis: this her- 355 this is also at her peak of.. 356 craziness 357 Mrs. Green: OH 358 Mrs. Lewis: but that's not the same handwriting 359 do you think? ((Mrs. Lewis glances at both Mrs. Green and Angie.)) 360 Angie: xxxxxxx “P” 361 Mrs. Green: oh wait 362 yes it is 363 Mrs. Lewis: oh maybe it is 364 Mrs. Green: look at the I's 365 Mrs. Lewis: it is↓ 366 it is 367 Mrs. Green: so she wrote that 368 Angie: what was she writing on? 369 because that's not her notebook 370 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 371 Mrs. Lewis: and there's something in here that he writes too 372 like an m.... 373 Mrs. Green: he writes toward the 374 toward the beginning 375 Mrs. Lewis: he also 376 doesn't he also write her 377 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 378 Mrs. Green: [what’s the date on-] 379 sorry- 380 let's go back to that email really quick 381 Angie: wait 382 is that him or- 383 Mrs. Green: cuz he writes that poem 384 and it's really messy 385 [yeah] 386 Mrs. Lewis: [yeah] 387 Mrs. Green: that's totally different 19 388 go back to that email where it talks about making the arrangements 389 Angie: OH 390 NO- 391 there's this-

286

392 [this one where it had like a sign in sheet] 393 Mrs. Green: [((unintelligible))] 394 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 395 and this part XXXX 2001 396 Mrs. Green: 2001 (..) yeah 397 so… 398 Angie: was that the mom's name on there 399 or was that hers? 400 Mrs. Green: oh↓ 401 I don't know 402 Mrs. Lewis: here 403 you find it ((Mrs. Lewis hands the book to Angie.)) 404 Mrs. Green: yeah 405 find the sign 406 and then we'll look at that email again really quick 20 407 ((Mrs. Lewis looks around the classroom.)) 408 Mrs. Lewis: sorry ((Mrs. Lewis glances at Mrs. Green.)) 409 we're like totally ignoring everyone else 410 but this is like- 411 Mrs. Green: they’re into it ((Mrs. Green turns around and surveys the classroom. Students are quiet and have heads positioned down reading.)) 412 [they’re good] 21 413 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 414 Mrs. Green: yes 415 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 416 Mrs. Green: [the sign-in sheet threw me for a loop] 417 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 418 Mrs. Green: [yes yes yes] 419 Angie: no 420 [it was her] 421 Mrs. Green: [OH NO] 422 IT WAS HER 423 and it's always XXXX to 2001 424 so she's been there before 425 Angie: it's repeating xxxx 426 it's here xxxxx 427 Mrs. Green: so she's like nine years old 428 [is that when her mom died↑] 429 Angie: [maybe she’s been-] 430 Mrs. Lewis: yeah 431 maybe-

287

432 Mrs. Green: so she’s been in 433 yeah 434 almost every year 435 Angie: maybe she’s been- 436 Mrs. Green: so she's gone to this rest facility before 22 437 so the other thing is like 438 "rest facility" 439 is that… 440 Mrs. Lewis: what does that mean 441 Mrs. Green: like a [mental-] 442 Mrs. Lewis: [it makes me think of like] 443 Mrs. Green: but it’s all like [piano players] 444 Mrs. Lewis: [a retirement-] 445 Mrs. Green: right 446 exactly 447 but it's all like piano players though 448 Mrs. Lewis: where do they say that 449 Mrs. Green: I think it- 450 Mrs. Lewis: does it say it on something↑ 451 Mrs. Green: I think so 452 Angie: “golden hands rest facility for [piano prodigies]” 453 Mrs. Green: [oh yeah] for piano prodigies 23 454 but where's the one 455 okay 456 oh my god 457 so this is 458 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 459 Mrs. Green: wait 460 Mrs. Lewis: September 2010 461 Mrs. Green: this is before- 462 this is two months before she disappeared 463 or whatever 464 Angie: umhum 465 Mrs. Green: cuz it said 466 “I tried to stop her from playing 467 blah blah blah 468 I need help with arrangements” 469 when I first saw arrangements I thought 470 oh (.) funeral arrangements 471 but no 472 it was arrangements 473 to like get into the-

288

474 Mrs. Lewis: get her into the facility 475 Mrs. Green: right 24 476 ((Emergency alert system begins announcement. The school was close to the town’s speaker and windows were open; it was very loud.)) 477 Angie: but maybe 478 I mean 479 maybe cuz she's been admitted 480 maybe cuz she's been crazy through this whole thing ((Angie gestures to her head and face referencing a mental illness.)) 481 and maybe what happens is [her] 482 Mrs. Green: (.hhhhh) 483 Angie: maybe it's just 484 her xxxxxxx 485 Mrs. Green: >maybe he's not real at all↑< 486 Angie: yeah 487 maybe she's xxxxxxxxxxx 488 Mrs. Lewis: >stop it< 489 [XXXXXX] 490 Angie: [scary it's scary] 491 Mrs. Green: [he might not be real at all then↑] 492 seriously 493 she might be 494 [fantasizing that whole thing] 495 Angie: [OH OH and then] ((Angie suddenly moves back a half step, arches her back, and turns toward Mrs. Green with an expression of surprise.)) 496 [>wait a minute wait a minute wait a minute<] 497 Mrs. Green: [and the “Chopsticks” with the f and g] 498 Angie: [look] ((Angie is rapidly flipping through the book.)) 499 Mrs. Green: [and the thing on the back] 500 Angie: >maybe she's writing to herself< 501 >maybe this< entire (..) time she's writing to herself 502 BOOM 503 OH ((Angie throws her head back and arches her upper back.)) 504 [ohhh:::] 505 Mrs. Green: seriously 506 cuz she might be fantasizing that whole thing 507 Mrs. Lewis: OH NO ANGIE ((Mrs. Lewis shifts backwards in her seat, as if startled, and smiles broadly.))

289

508 now I'm thinking a whole [nother thing] 509 Mrs. Green: [I think he-] ((Mrs. Green turns toward Angie and moves her hand up and down, as if making a point.)) 510 I think she made him up 511 the whole entire time 512 [cuz if she-] 513 Angie: [she’s crazy] 514 Mrs. Green: cuz otherwise 515 Angie: [BOOM::] 516 Mrs. Green: [why would they say that it started in 2001] 517 with her going to this place 518 Mrs. Lewis: so the whole thing is- 519 Mrs. Green: the whole thing is made up 520 Angie: [((unintelligible))] 521 cuz 522 Mrs. Lewis: stop 523 Angie: it never shows his plane tickets ((Emergency sirens begin blaring. Angie slaps her forehead and slightly jumps up and down two times.)) 524 or his xxxxx 525 or his xxxxx 526 OH::: 527 [BOOM:::] 528 Mrs. Lewis: IT DOESN’T 529 Mrs. Green: IT DOESN’T ((Mrs. Lewis takes the book back from Angie.)) 530 and then the back says ((Angie begins chewing on the fingernails of her right hand.)) 531 ["madness of what's real and what's not"] 532 Mrs. Lewis: [((unintelligible))] 533 Mrs. Green: so she's playing “Chopsticks” and going crazy 534 and she's fantasizing this f (.) g- 535 like f and g 536 f and g 537 Mrs. Lewis: what does it say about… ((Mrs. Lewis begins to look down at her phone.)) 538 Angie: and all he does is hand her links 539 of piano players 540 and all that stuff 541 Mrs. Green: umhum 542 Angie: and maybe 543 she's just finding these 544 and she's like xxx

290

25 545 Mrs. Lewis: I didn't read anything about the authors 546 did you↑ 547 Mrs. Green: no 548 Mrs. Lewis: [((unintelligible))] 549 Mrs. Green: [and I was hoping there was an authors note] 550 Angie: [yeah] 551 Mrs. Green: [but there’s not] 552 Angie: [oh my god] 553 I like the author q and a's 554 Mrs. Green: [I do too] 555 Mrs. Lewis: I want to talk to xxx 556 Angie: we should email the author 557 Mrs. Lewis: you should email the author 558 Mrs. Green: yeah. 559 I bet there's an interview somewhere 560 I'd go xxx those rainbow one's were good 26 561 alright ((Mrs. Green turns toward the class.)) 562 well 563 you better talk to Ravna 564 and see what she thinks 565 ((Angie looks to Ravna at the back of classroom and makes an exaggerated display wiping the outside of her right forearm against her brow.)) 566 Mrs. Lewis: did any of you girls read Chopsticks↑ ((Directed toward a nearby table of girls.)) 567 we want to see you go down the path 568 and I think that it could be on point 569 Angie: I kinda want to just scream 27 570 ((Ravna walks to the front of the classroom. Mrs. Green, Angie, and Ravna have a brief conversation. Mrs. Green gave Ravna Chopsticks to read at home that night.)) 28 571 Mrs. Lewis: alright guys 572 so I'm sorry 573 but we were just totally 574 just engrossed 575 this is a good learning experience 576 because this book turned by world upside down 577 because I find them quite a bit harder to read. 578 if you're reading them 579 not just looking at them 580 graphic novels are much more difficult to read than other ones

291

29 581 ((After a few more closing remarks, class ends and the students file out.))

292

Appendix E: Angie, Ravna, and Olivia’s Hallway Interaction

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 1 1 ((Robert walks into hallway with Olivia and Mrs. Green holding the video camera.)) 2 Robert: did you read it too ((directed to Olivia)) 3 Olivia: yeah, I did read it. It’s hard to like - fully understand it 4 Mrs. Green: you just finished it recently right? 5 Olivia: yeah - so I don’t know 6 I just got that she was there 7 but xxxxxx she was playing “Chopsticks” a lot 8 Mrs. Green: okay 9 so she was playing “Chopsticks” a lot 10 what does that 11 why does that make her 12 why does it feel like there is a need for her to be sent somewhere specific to live? 13 if she’s playing chopsticks a lot 14 Olivia: I mean - 15 I know that her first song she ever played was Chopsticks 16 with her mom 17 so I thought maybe that’s why her dad didn’t like her playing it 18 Mrs. Green: okay… 19 Robert: oh, didn’t think about that 20 Mrs. Green: I didn’t think about that either 21 that was the first song she ever played with her mom 22 what do we know about- 2 23 Robert: what do we know of that template of that letter right there ((pointing to the page in the book Mrs. Green and Olivia have open)) 24 Olivia: this? 25 Robert: yeah - the shield - check out the shield 26 Olivia: oh that- 27 yeah it was the same as the 28 as um the report card and stuff for Frank 29 Mrs. Green: for who? 30 Olivia: Frank

293

31 Mrs. Green: okay - so if it was the same… 32 let’s look again at that 33 Olivia: that’s what confused me 34 cuz it was like xxxxx the Golden Hands Rest Facility 35 Mrs. Green: okay… 36 if we look at 37 let’s see if we can find this 38 that’s probably not an appropriate one though 39 but we know that’s his writing, right? 40 Robert: @@ 41 Olivia: yeah 42 Mrs. Green: and we know that that - 43 that’s from him right? 44 that’s what we’re thinking right? 45 and then here’s one of the report cards 46 it’s the same - it’s the same heading right? 47 Olivia: it says Williard Dunn 48 Mrs. Green: but it’s still the [same visual?] 49 Olivia: [yeah] 50 Mrs. Green: but there’s a different name 51 okay 3 52 here’s what I want to ask you though 53 what do you notice about her progression of her skills as a piano player go? 54 how do you see that evolve and change over the course of the story? 55 Olivia: I feel like it’s not as good almost 56 like people are like disappointed 57 Mrs. Green: why are they disappointed? 58 Olivia: um, she’s not playing what she should be playing 59 Mrs. Green: okay 60 so to the level that she was playing for a short amount of time 61 where in the book do we see her really excelling as a piano player? 62 where are some of the places you can xxxxx. 63 Angie spilled a cup of water so it’s all funky 64 Olivia: like getting better? 65 Mrs. Green: yeah 66 isn’t it at one point she’s like a superstar? 67 Olivia: yeah

294

68 there’s like a newspaper article 69 Mrs. Green: okay 70 it talks about her being such a prodigy, right? 71 what’s it say? 72 Olivia: ((Reading from book.)) “Piano prodigy Gloria Fleming played the Russian composers” 73 then it talks about- 74 Mrs. Green: okay 75 so she’s really developing as a pianist 76 right 77 at so young for her age 78 where do we see a change in that? 79 is there a point in the story where we see a change? 80 Olivia: yeah, it’s like when she starts… 81 there’s another article like that one 82 it was saying how like she’s- 83 she’s only playing “Chopsticks” and not stuff that she used to 84 Mrs. Green: that she was supposed to play 85 or that she was experienced 86 or that she - 87 Olivia: and I feel it had something to do with like um Frank 88 Mrs. Green: okay 89 whaddu mean? 90 tell me more about that? 91 Olivia: I don’t know exactly 92 but ever since she like met him 93 then she started playing it a lot 94 and like a book that he wrote in 95 there were a ton of “Chopsticks” 96 he was like writing notes about her- 97 or, she was writing notes about him 98 Mrs. Green: where is that - can we find that? ((Olivia turns to the page)) 99 okay 100 and you feel like- 101 so as Frank comes into play… 102 Olivia: she’s like playing it more 103 Mrs. Green: okay

295

104 why might that be do you think? 105 Olivia: maybe she’s like opening up 106 or since her- 107 it was the last song- 108 or it was the first song she played with her mom 109 maybe now she’s like opening up to him 110 Mrs. Green: okay 111 Robert: was it the last song she played with her mom? 112 Olivia: I don’t know if it was the last but - 113 Mrs. Green: it was the first song she played on the piano 114 Olivia: it was like the first recital 115 Robert: oh::: 116 the first recital 117 yeah yeah 118 I remember that now 119 I don’t think I put that together 4 120 do you know what that Sylvia Plath- ((asking about one of the pages in the book with a picture of a Sylvia Path book opened up to)) 121 Mrs. Green: do you know what? 122 Robert: what that um 123 the one Olivia was just looking at? 124 Mrs. Green: oh, with the writing? 125 Robert: yeah do you- 126 Mrs. Green: I don’t know that one at all 127 no 128 but that might be something interesting for us to look up 3 129 Olivia: ((flipping through the book)) I don’t know where it was, but 130 Mrs. Green: okay 131 Olivia: it was like the first recital 132 and then they said she played “Chopsticks” 133 like at the bottom of the page 134 Mrs. Green: okay 135 so 136 I’m gonna share with you um 137 because you already shared with me what you thought 138 how it ended 139 what you saw happening 5 140 Robert: what did- 141 can you share with me?

296

142 Olivia: yeah 143 I just thought she went off with Frank 144 like they made it off to her- 145 to his home town and then 146 Robert: in Argentina? 147 Olivia: yeah 148 Robert: or- was it Argentina? 149 Olivia: yeah, I think it was Argentina 150 Mrs. Green: um, so that xxx your thinking 151 cuz you said 152 Olivia: cuz when she like went missing and some stuff 153 then I think she just went with him 154 cuz right - 155 in that picture ((points at book)) 156 or not that one 157 but like there’s one of them together having coffee 158 Mrs. Green: the end? 159 Olivia: yeah it is 160 yeah, like right there 161 Mrs. Green: what do you think if we look at the pictures that surround that picture 162 so we have this ((points at sun setting or rising over ocean)) 163 and then we have this after ((field of daisies in seed head)) 164 do you think there’s anything significant about that? 165 if this is what it’s sandwiching, 166 right 167 the two of them eating having coffee 168 and then it’s surrounded by this and this 169 do you think there is anything- 170 any reason for that? 171 Olivia: yeah, probably 172 um… 173 Mrs. Green: yeah, probably? 6 174 so I’m gonna share with you one of the questions that Mrs.- 175 or one of the argument that Mrs. Green and I first had when we read it 176 and we came together and said okay 177 did she go to Argentina or did she die?

297

178 Olivia: yeah, that’s what I was wondering too 179 but then I figured that she went to Argentina cuz of that picture 180 Mrs. Green: okay 181 so what else shows- 182 what else shows you you think that she went to Argentina? 183 what other pictures- 184 or were there any other pictures that made you think that? 185 Olivia: like this travel the world for work 186 and then the ticket ((points at employment ad for cruise ship pianist and boarding ticket onto cruise ship)) to go to Argentina 187 so- 188 Mrs. Green: okay 189 Olivia: it’s like what made me realize that she didn’t- 190 I don’t think she died 191 Mrs. Green: okay 192 something that someone else pointed out too was the date 193 um and this is what made me start thinking 194 so the date on the ticket is what? 195 Olivia: the sixth of December 2009 196 Mrs. Green: December sixth is also my birthday 197 which is weird 198 Robert: oh no way↑ 199 Mrs. Green: @Yeah 200 there was um a date of her concert somewhere 201 or not the date of her concert - of ((pats picture of book; picture is at the very beginning and police evidence bags hold some of Glory’s belongings.)) 202 Olivia: oh 203 Mrs. Green: [so] 204 Olivia: [so] maybe- 205 cuz they were finding that stuff cuz they didn’t know where she was 206 Mrs. Green: okay 207 Olivia: so then that’s when they found it - 208 and then she left that day 209 cuz then she would’ve left the same day and were

298

finding her stuff 210 Mrs. Green: okay, do you think - 7 211 Olivia: when I first like- 212 when I first opened this I thought that she died 213 like I thought she was dead 214 Mrs. Green: because it was an ev- 215 you saw the evidence bags 8 216 okay 217 um 218 here’s what I want to have you do 219 I gonna have Ravna and Angie come down and chat. 220 and share their perspectives 221 and I wanna see if you can pick up on anything else from there 222 sound good? 223 HEY RAVNA ((Calls down the hall to where Ravna and Angie are sitting on the floor.)) 224 HEY RAVNA, ANGIE 225 YOU GUYS WANT TO COME DOWN HERE FOR A SECOND? 226 Angie: NO xxxxxx ((The computer they had been using was plugged into an outlet in the hallway.)) 227 Mrs. Green: OH 228 THEN CAN WE COME JOIN YOU? 229 Angie: YES 9 230 ((Olivia, Mrs. Green, and Robert, still holding the video camera, walk down the hallway to where Ravna and Angie are sitting)) 231 Mrs. Green: Olivia just finished reading Chopsticks recently 232 and we just talked 233 Ravna: does she understand xxxxxxx 234 Mrs. Green: well 235 she has her own ideas 236 and they’re kind of what we (are)- 237 our ideas initially were 238 but I want you guys to share with her your theory 239 and kinda point out why you think what you think 240 so this might blow her mind ((looks toward Olivia.)) 241 but Olivia can share first with you what she thinks 242 and it’s initially what you two thought

299

243 well, kinda 10 244 Olivia: I thought like at the end that she’s still alive 245 and that xxxxxxx Frank 246 because there’s a picture of them together 247 ((flips through book)) right here 248 so I first I thought she might have died 249 but now that they’re like together 250 I don’t think she did 251 Mrs. Green: so she looked at the plane ticket 252 she talked about - 253 Olivia: yeah 254 xxxxxx the plane ticket too 255 so then you know she’s gone somewhere 256 Mrs. Green: the evidence bag 257 right 258 had the same date 11 259 so now I want you guys to tell Olivia what you think 260 Ravna: [okay] 261 Angie: [so she] doesn’t have idea? 262 Mrs. Green: well 263 I didn’t have any idea 264 till you guys brought it to my [attention] 265 Angie: [Olivia] here’s- 266 we’re gonna try to not make you- 267 your head explode 268 Mrs. Green: I’m gonna step out 269 Angie: okay um 270 so xxxxx 271 Mrs. Green: maybe point out some of the evidence that you found 272 and then see if she can kinda- 273 Ravna: okay, 274 so first- 275 Angie: let’s see if you can put this together 276 Olivia: okay 277 Ravna: one of the reasons that we thought what we did 278 is because if you look at this symbol right 279 like the Williard Dunn symbol 280 his high school 281 it’s the same symbol as the um

300

282 Olivia: yeah, I noticed that 283 Ravna: Golden:::: 284 Olivia: but it just says something else underneath 285 Ravna: Hands 286 yeah 287 so that’s something to realize xxxxxxxxx 288 Angie: hold on 289 I want to show her something 290 wait wait wait 12 291 Ravna: and then there’s that ((points at the picture of the Francisco Mendoza wine bottle with the likeness of Frank on the label)) 292 which is the- 293 his name is Frank Mendoza 294 which is basically like 295 like her mother’s favorite wine 296 and there’s a picture of him on it 297 Angie: and then um- 298 there’s- 299 you see 300 and there’s one where he paints those pictures 301 Ravna: at the end- 302 Angie: at the end 303 Ravna: they all say G. Fleming 304 Angie: she had - she said her mother 13 305 Olivia: (HHH) wait::: 306 is she- 307 is he not alive? 308 Ravna: NO 309 A&R&O: @@@@@@@@@@ 310 Ravna: @is @he @@@@ he’s not [real] 311 Olivia: [is he] a ghost? 312 Angie: no 14 313 okay 314 so what we 315 we came up with is that Glory is actually insane 316 and she imagined him this entire time 317 Ravna: Golden gun- 318 Golden Hands is like the insane asylum that she goes to 319 and that’s why it’s like “all staff” 320 like she breaks out xxxx at the end

301

321 she like goes to- 322 Angie: kills herself 323 Ravna: kills herself 324 and that like 325 Angie: xxxxx her heaven 326 it’s her heaven 327 her heaven is Frank 15 328 Ravna: what I was thinking at first with the wine bottle was she had an alcohol problem 329 but now I don’t think that 330 cuz every time together there’s either like wine after 331 or they’re drinking wine 332 but I don’t think that’s what it is any more 333 but I first that’s what I thought. 334 Robert: well what did her mom do? 335 Angie: well her mom was a wine distributor 336 so she has an attachment to the wine 337 which is the wine bottle 338 Ravna: her favorite wine was xxxxx ((points to picture)) 339 Olivia: yeah 340 so Frank wasn’t real 341 Angie: yeah 342 she made him up from that wine bottle 343 Olivia: I didn’t even put that bottle together really 344 Ravna: yeah and she’s like - 345 it shows her like sewing up the jacket 346 Angie: you see all he ever sends her is these videos 347 and then it’s like other links 348 and these are all from her xxxxx 349 Olivia: oh yeah, I noticed why - why xxxx 16 350 Ravna: I love this picture ((Points to a close-up of Glory’s face spreading out over two pages.)) 351 this is one of my favorites cuz this is like xxxx 352 and something just snaps ((snaps her fingers)) 353 Robert: or it’s- 354 what might what might she have? 355 Angie: I said schizophrenia 356 I said because- 357 Robert: okay 358 and what else though 359 what else might she have?

302

360 Angie: I mean she- 361 it’s trauma 362 and the stress of the piano 363 Robert: schizophrenia’s probably right- 364 it’s a good diagnosis 365 Angie: it’s auditory and visual hallucinations xxxxxxxxx 366 Ravna: and it was caused like by when her mom died 367 and she was pushed to do all this stuff 368 and then all at once- 17 369 Olivia: so then do you guys know why she was playing “Chopsticks?” 370 Ravna: that’s- 371 she’s- 372 Angie: the piano keys 373 F and G are together 374 Ravna: F and G are one of the most played in “Chopsticks” 375 oh my gosh 376 I have “Chopsticks” ((Ravna stands up and walks down the hallway)) 377 Olivia: so like her first piano recital she played “Chopsticks” 378 Robert: I think- 379 I think you’re right Olivia 380 I think that’s right 381 Olivia: so it might have something to do with that- 382 cuz her mom was there too 383 Ravna: ((walking back towards the group)) the “Chopsticks” waltz is usually played by two people 384 but she played it by herself 385 Angie: and if you look at all these xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 386 Robert: well if you look at - 18 387 Angie: it’s the mirror- ((Pointing at picture of Glory and Frank looking at each other as if in a mirror.)) 388 it’s the mirror and she sees him 389 Robert: ahh::: 390 I didn’t catch that one 391 Olivia: oh my gosh 392 I didn’t- 393 I just thought maybe it was cuz they were brushing their teeth like 394 I don’t even know 19 395 Robert: so does anyone know what the-

303

396 what the- 397 not the flowers- 398 the uhh ((snapping fingers)) 399 Angie: the sea creatures? 400 Robert: [dandelions] 401 Ravna: [dandelions] 402 Robert: what do those symbolize? 403 Angie: I forget what Mrs. Green said 404 Ravna: oh 405 well 406 something about happiness 407 Olivia: they’re right here ((points at page)) 408 Angie: they mean uhhh:: 409 Ravna: I forget what the squid means too 410 Robert: what does the squid mean? 411 Ravna: the squid means like losing uhh:: 412 Angie: yourself 413 Ravna: your identity 414 Olivia: I want to find that picture of her in her first xxxxxxx 415 Ravna: I think it’s like xxxx - 20 416 OH! 417 the part where xxxxx head turns 418 Angie: ((unintelligible)) 419 here look this 420 another thing 421 she’s playing 422 he gets up next to her and no one moves or turn their heads 423 there all just xxxxx 424 so she’s the only one that xxxxxxx 425 Olivia: so you think she’s like crazy 426 he’s not like her mom? 427 Angie: she’s been going to the hospital since 2001 428 so it’s been since then 17 429 Ravna: like, it’s really complicated ((Ravna starts playing the “Chopsticks” song on her phone)) 430 like the version she plays isn’t just regular “Chopsticks” 431 that how you know xxxxxxx 432 it was just all the stress of it 21 433 Mrs. Green: so, what did I miss? 434 Olivia: well like I think I-

304

435 as they started to tell me certain stuff 436 I was like oh my gosh 437 is he not even- 438 is he a ghost almost 439 or like- 440 so then they like told me they think she’s crazy 22 441 Robert: so where do you think she killed- 442 how do you know she killed herself? 443 why couldn’t she just xxxx 444 Angie: I came up with this 445 in the last two pages 446 the bathroom door 447 cuz you can tell the tile floor 448 which is typically bathroom 449 Ravna: weren’t we talking about if we were wrong? 450 we were talking about what could have happened if we were wrong 451 we were talking about like she did run away 452 Olivia: I didn’t- 453 what were they talking about when they were saying Joanne and stuff 454 was that just in the background? 455 Angie: that was from the TV 456 Olivia: see 457 when I was looking at this 458 I was thinking like okay she’s dead 459 Ravna: she was xxxxx 460 so hard 461 like this is like 462 this is like not just- 17 463 “Chopsticks” is just like duh duh duh ((Talking about the song, “Chopsticks,” which is playing on her phone.)) 22 464 there are all like Golden Hands like activities 465 sewing kit 466 Olivia: yeah 467 I noticed that the books and stuff said Golden Hands 468 Angie: that’s her like asylum kind of thing 469 and those are all like sewing books 470 and she sewed the jacket 471 so we’re thinking that maybe she made it 472 cuz she has all these books on it

305

23 473 Olivia: do these pictures xxxx 474 Ravna: those are all by her 475 so she wasn’t just like 476 he was supposed to be like a Spanish like exchange student 477 but like I don’t think like- 478 Angie: it’s Spanish wine 479 Ravna: yeah 480 it’s from Spain 481 it’s from Ar- 482 yeah 483 Robert: Spain’s not Argentina 24 484 Olivia: these are the flowers again ((pointing to picture in book that has “Good Luck G” spelled out with yellow dandelions) 485 Angie: in the end it says she buys a plane ticket to uh- 486 xxxxxx 487 I forget what we looked up about it 488 the yellow dandelions were- 489 I have to ask Mrs. Green 490 cuz she’s the one who looked it up for us 491 Ravna: and then like 492 the white ones are supposed to mean like new beginnings 493 new beginning as in- 494 Robert: really? 495 Olivia: so like did- 496 so nobody bought that house or anything 497 Robert: oh 498 because then they seed. 499 Angie: and the yellow ones are supposed to be… 500 I totally forget that 501 but I know the white ones are new beginnings 502 and that was at the end of the book 503 after she went over seas 25 504 Olivia: well here they’re talking about her going missing 505 Angie: yeah so- 506 Olivia: so where would she have killed herself if she’s missing? 507 Ravna: EXACTLY! 508 that’s what I was asking Angie 509 Robert: [ahh:::: good question] 510 Ravna: [I was going to say]

306

511 yeah, 512 I was going to [say] 513 Olivia: [like] if she was they would have found her 514 Robert: you know what? 515 you know what? 516 let’s look- 517 let’s look- 518 I think this is the key 519 let’s look at that um- 520 look at the ticket 521 look at the plane ticket 522 I don’t think it’s a- 523 I don’t think it’s a plane ticket 524 Olivia: it talks about her like, 525 ((reading from email in book)) “I’m sorry tonight - you already lost Maria and we’re afraid of losing Glory too. I didn’t know what you meant.” 526 Robert: September 19th, 2009 527 Olivia: so- 528 Angie: so they know she’s mental- 529 like she’s… 530 Olivia: yeah 531 they know something is wrong 532 Robert: when did she [leave?] 533 Ravna: [they meant] mentally 534 Angie: she left December of 2009 535 Robert: okay 536 December 537 okay 538 [so this] ((points at the ticket dated in December 2009)) 539 Angie: [yeah, that doesn’t look like a plane ticket] 540 Robert: ((Reading from book)) “Entertaining Seas” 541 so that is a… 542 Olivia: “pier of destination” ((reading off ticket)) 543 it looks like a boat 544 Robert: so that’s a boat ride 545 so she’s taking boat to Argentina 546 not a plane 547 which means… 548 Angie: SEA CREATURES↑ 549 the- 550 Robert: no-

307

551 yeah 552 exactly 553 which means this means what ((points at picture at the end of the book that is a of a sun setting or rising from the middle of the ocean)) 554 Olivia: oh 555 that’s she’s on a boat 556 Robert: well 557 that- 558 Olivia: well that that’s the water almost 559 [she’s on a boat] 560 Robert: [how do you think she] killed herself? 561 Olivia: she jumped off 562 Angie: OHH::::: 563 Ravna: OH MY GOD↑ 564 Olivia: she jumped 565 Angie: [she was missing-] 566 Robert: [she had to] 567 and then she got on the- 568 Angie: [OHH::::] 569 Ravna: [OHH::::] 570 Olivia: cuz then she got on the boat 571 so she was missing 572 cuz she went on the boat 573 and then she killed herself on the boat 574 Ravna: oh my god that’s- ((uses both hands to cover her mouth)) 575 Robert: it has to be 576 cuz that’s not a plane [ticket] 577 Angie: [that] xxxx the sea creatures 578 Olivia: yeah 579 that’s not a plane [ticket] 580 Ravna: [so then this] must be her packing ((points at the picture of the bathroom door opened slightly)) 581 Olivia: that wouldn’t make sense 582 Ravna: we talked about that too ((faces Angie)) 583 Olivia: that wouldn’t make sense if she killed herself at her house 584 Robert: they would’ve seen her in the bathroom 585 Olivia: yeah, [they would’ve seen her] 586 Ravna: [cuz she left everything] behind though 587 Angie: you’re right

308

588 yeah 589 she jumped off the boat 590 Olivia: that- 591 that makes sense 592 Ravna: she left [everything] 593 Angie: [we gotta go] tell Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis 594 this is a big discovery ((Olivia gets up to go tell Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis.)) 595 Ravna: maybe she was hanging up her stuff 596 maybe because she wasn’t packing 597 cuz if she was like- 598 cuz she like left like everything behind 599 Robert: so she thought about packing and then decided… 600 Ravna: yeah 601 what’s the thing with like sea creatures? 602 ((Reading from book)) “Remember what our love is [xxxxxxxx”] 603 Robert: [that makes sense] with the sea creatures 604 Angie: yeah 605 that’s how she- 606 I mean- 607 Ravna: sea- 608 like the sea 609 there it is again ((pointing at book)) 610 this is so crazy::: 611 Angie: so she didn’t- 612 she jumped off the boat- 613 okay 614 Ravna: seriously 615 if we’re completely wrong 616 and he was real 617 and she ran away with him 618 I’m gonna slap you’all through the face 619 Robert: @@ 620 Angie: like 621 you led us on 622 Ravna: @you- 623 @we did this @work 624 Ravna: did you tell them? ((asking Olivia who is rejoining the group)) 625 Olivia: yeah 626 Ravna: it’s crazy:::

309

627 Olivia: oh 628 “Entertaining Seas” 629 so that’s circled 630 and that’s right there too ((points to employment ad for pianist on Entertaining Seas cruise ship and then to the boat ticket)) 631 “piano lounge performer” ((reading from book)) 632 oh wait 633 it says- 634 that’s really creepy 635 so “Entertaining Seas” ((points at ad)) 636 “Entertaining Seas” ((points at boat ticket)) 637 and it says they need a piano lounge performer 638 Angie: umm::: 639 Ravna: [OH↑] 640 Olivia: [so] she musta done it- 641 Angie: free trip 26 642 Robert: I mean 643 she could’ve- 644 I mean technically I think that’s why it’s open 645 so I think we’re on the right page with the ocean 646 like she’s on a boat 647 but I don’t- 648 I don’t know if we can know 649 I don’t know if we can know whether she jumped or not 650 Angie: the thing about this is like if we have- 651 if we all paid closer attention to the very fact the last paragraph of this 652 “now Gloria disappeared but nothing is what it seems and we must decide what is real and what is imagined and what has been madness all along” ((reading from the back cover of the book)) 653 and then you’re like [ah-ha] 654 Ravna: [she has to be insane] 655 that’s one thing she- 656 she escaped from an insane asylum 657 everyone’s like it’s a piano school ((Ravna finger quotes “piano school”)) 658 it’s a insane asylum 659 she’s crazy 660 so she escaped

310

661 Olivia: well she went to go xxxx- 662 Robert: well no 663 it said- 664 it said the piano- 665 Angie: piano prodigy 666 [it’s an asylum for xxxxxx who are overworked] 667 Robert: [for people who were] struggling 668 Angie: overworked - struggling 669 Robert: correct 670 mentally disturbed musicians 671 [more or less] 672 Angie: [yeah] 27 673 Ravna: so she- 674 like the one thing I’m trying to figure out is if she doesn’t kill herself 675 then what is she doing? 676 cuz I’m almost positive that he’s not real 677 Robert: I agree with you 678 Ravna: so, if- 679 then we need to- 680 we need to consider all possibilities 681 that’s what like a good thinker 682 like a good person who like tries to figure things out 683 always considers the other side of the story 684 so we need to consider that if she doesn’t kill herself then what- 685 like what is she doing 686 Robert: I think what you guys need to do- 687 [Angie, you started-] 688 Olivia: [I know] the reason why she would’ve gone to Argentina is cuz she’s still imagining him 689 cuz if you are thinking of me follow me ((paraphrasing a quote from the book)) 690 so that’s why she would’ve gone 691 and then maybe she realizes like she’s [crazy] 692 Ravna: [why’s] she leave xxxx- 693 why does she leave everything? 694 cuz everything is still on the wall 695 Angie: yeah 696 why does she? 697 maybe she- 698 Ravna: the boxing jacket xxxxxx

311

699 she left the boxing jacket behind because it was part of the evidence 700 so she’s still imagining xxxxxx 701 Angie: maybe she finally realized 702 maybe she’s like this isn’t real 703 and I’m gonna go and follow him 704 and then she doesn’t find him 705 and she kills herself xxxxxxx 706 it’s not- 707 she’s like 708 who:::ah 709 Ravna: she imagined that he left 710 so she went after him 711 Robert: all we need- 712 Ravna: and then she realized she- 713 it wasn’t real 714 Olivia: yeah 715 that’s why it seems- 716 I didn’t even read this ((points at book)) 717 but that’d make sense because they need a piano= 718 Ravna: she imagines 719 Olivia: =performer 720 Ravna: so she imagines that he left 721 so she went to follow him 722 and maybe on the boat she realized that he wasn’t real 723 so she ((makes cutting sound and swipes her finger at her neck)) 724 Angie: or 725 she’s like maybe he’s- 726 maybe I have to follow him 727 I’ll just kill myself xxxxxx 28 728 Ravna: well we were on the internet 729 one of the people thought Glory wasn’t real 730 we’re like noo::: 731 she’s real 732 Robert: yeah 733 that would make less sense I would say 734 Ravna: it’s more like @@@ 735 yeah that like it centered on her 736 so if she wasn’t real then like question civilization 737 Robert: so I think what you might need to do is um -

312

29 738 Angie: ((responding to Mrs. Green down the hallway who wants the computer that Angie and Ravna were using)) 739 OKAY, WE’RE DONE WITH IT 740 Mrs. Green: ((Mrs. Green walks closer)) are you guys finished with it? 741 Olivia: yeah 742 we’re just talking 743 Ravna: we’re talking now ((Mrs. Green grabs the computer)) 30 744 Robert: what you might need to do is get- 745 so there’s three major possibilities right? 746 Angie: yeah 747 Robert: um that everything’s real 748 that it’s not real but she died 749 or that’s it’s not real but she’s dead 750 Ravna: that’s like - 751 Robert: so I would try to get like a list going of the evidence for- 752 for each of those 753 that might be the way to see what is most likely 754 I don’t think you’re going to be able to answer it necessarily 31 755 ((Angie, Ravna, and Olivia discuss the book for another five minutes and then class ends.))

313

Appendix F: Group Interview with Angie, Ravna, and Olivia

I.U. Line Speaker Message Unit 1 1 ((05/29/14 - In extra library room for group interview with Angie, Ravna, and Olivia.)) 2 ((Setting up camera and laptop to play the video recording of Angie, Ravna, and Olivia’s conversation in the hallway. cf. Appendix E.)) 3 Robert: I’m going to play the video and you guys are going to watch it 2 4 ((video begins - it is of their conversation in the hallway)) 5 Angie: @@@@@@@@ Ravna: 6 Olivia: right after you guys told me that I was like oh 7 I get it now 8 but then I thought she was a ghost 3 9 Robert: we’re going to watch the whole thing 10 and then go over it after 11 ((Robert changes the camera’s position to view their faces)) 4 12 Angie: right now me and Ravna 13 I think what we were trying to do 14 is trying to approach it with facts first 15 and then let it hit her by itself 16 Ravna: yeah we didn’t wanna like 17 we wanted to give her hints to see if she could figure it out 18 Angie: like we just told her xxxx 19 and she started to realize 20 “oh, wait I see” 21 and it was like boom 22 Ravna: so I remember we had our theory 23 cuz Angie came up with her theory 24 and then like I came up with evidence 25 and you came up with more evidence 26 and then we tried to do it in reverse - 27 give her evidence and let her figure it out 28 Robert: how did you come up with that idea to do it that way? 29 Angie: I mean 30 if we would’ve just told her right away 31 it wouldn’t have been any mystery for her 32 Olivia: I liked the way guys told me - 33 I got to realize it and figure it out

314

34 Ravna: it makes you feel really smart 35 Angie: like, it all makes sense now - 36 it’s a good moment 37 Ravna: that’s why I like brain teasers 38 because if you finally figure out the meaning 39 you just like- 40 boom 5 41 Robert: does anyone know how to do the screen capture? 6 42 ((Begins video again)) 43 Olivia: I thought she was still alive - 44 or ran off with him 45 Ravna: well that was our first theory too 46 Olivia: Mrs. Lewis and I already talked about that 47 so I knew about it 48 Ravna: figured out a symbol 49 Olivia: this is when I started to figure it out - 50 the wine bottle - 51 I thought he was a ghost trying to come out through the mom or something 52 and then they started showing me the paintings and I was like okay yeah 53 Angie: the thing about having another person who has a fresh mind in this like Olivia is that you can- 54 you’re open to the ideas - 55 like you figured out the boat thing 56 and like it was a really good idea 7 57 ((Video recording on computer shows when Olivia figures it out.)) 58 Angie: you’re like, “oh my god!” 8 59 Ravna: well I remember like when you first find out about it 60 you just want to work on it night and day - 61 the day I found out what it really was 62 I remember I kept going back to Mrs. Green 63 and showing her more evidence and evidence and evidence 64 and the Golden Hands and the wine bottle 65 and all this like evidence I had 66 Angie: like seriously I racked my- 67 I like racked my brain so hard for like- 68 every time- 69 everyday after this period I [had a headache]

315

70 Ravna: [she had a headache] 71 Angie: I had a headache everyday so I was like… 72 Ravna: everyday in Math and I was like 73 are you okay? 74 like she sits right over there 75 next to me 76 and I was like okay? 77 and she’s like ((holds her hand up to her head)) 78 Robert: so you guys ((sic)) were all talking about it after? 79 Ravna: yeah 80 cuz we have third period to talk about it 81 Angie: cuz we went over her house after 82 Ravna: yeah 83 we went over to my house after that 84 Robert: were you taking pictures? 85 do you still have those? 9 86 Olivia: so it’s right when the paintings- 87 where they said the painting are signed 88 Angie: there - right there 89 Ravna: @@@@@ there it is 90 Robert: what’s interesting is you seem to understand it 91 but then can’t quite get it out 92 Ravna: we’re going to be like, “no, you’re wrong” 93 @@@@@@ 10 94 ((…)) 11 95 Robert: the year of the uh what we thought was Frank’s plane ticket 96 Ravna: oh, 1987 97 Angie: what? 98 Ravna: okay 99 so when Frank first came to America as a Hispanic exchange student 100 he has a plane ticket on his bed 101 and the plane ticket is 1987 102 Angie: 1987 is the year her mom died 103 Ravna: no 104 her mom died in 2000 105 Angie: no 106 when she left to go to um… 107 Robert: she must have left to go to start the wine importing business 12 108 ((…)) 109 Angie: maybe her house was sold 110 Robert: so the idea on the um-

316

111 Olivia 112 the idea on the coordinates ((Robert is referencing a series of numbers in Chopsticks that might mean latitude and longitude.)) 113 was- 114 my thinking was on the coordinates- 115 cuz we still hadn’t figured out whether or not she actually jumped off the ship 116 or she went all the way to Argentina 117 and my argument would be that if the coordinates mean what they do 118 then the authors are pinpointing a place in the middle of the ocean 119 that’s where she jumped 120 Ravna: why- 121 but yeah but that would be a slow death 122 why would you kill yourself like that 123 Angie: no 124 sometimes you smack the water and you die on the impact 125 if the ship is way up here ((raises hand)) you just smack 126 Titanic- 127 it’s like the Titanic 128 Ravna: you’re right it’s the cruise ship 129 Robert: you still wouldn’t die on impact 130 Angie: I mean… 131 maybe it’s like- 132 the injury of the fall 133 sharks 134 blood from the fall 135 anything could have happened 136 you never know 137 Robert: that’s true 138 she was also, um 139 she was also crazy 140 Ravna: what if she always had her plan 141 she was always going to kill herself 142 because the part - 143 when she’s like that- 144 when she’s realizing she’s insane 145 like really insane 146 she needs to like die

317

147 but like what’s with- 148 why does she- 149 does she love the ocean? 150 like is that her thing? 151 ((…Angie: looks up symbols of water on her phone)) 152 Olivia: well 153 I mean it has to be- 154 I mean- 155 I think she definitely died 156 you know 157 finding those coordinates and stuff 158 Angie: I’m just gonna figure out why the ocean- 159 why is sea creatures so predominant during this book 160 because I feel like - 161 Ravna: I like the words we use @@ 162 Angie: I feel like there has to be something… 163 Robert: there has to be something there 164 Angie: like this- 165 I think this is a great discovery because- 166 Olivia: or it could just be xxxxx leading up to how she killed herself 167 Robert: correct 168 well here- 169 what if- 170 what if- 171 the sea creatures is the idea that she thought that’s where she was gonna go meet Frank? 172 that’s where he was for some reason 173 Ravna: thad be sad though 174 Angie: but then I wanna know the reason - 175 like if I have a theory I have to back it up 13 176 Robert: well wait- 177 wait- 178 wait wait wait ((Robert slaps the table twice)) 179 if Frank is really a stand in for her mom 180 then what’s she doing with her death? 181 she’s… 182 she’s reuniting… 183 Angie: with her mom 184 A&R&O: OHHHHH 185 Ravna: that’s why she wants to be dead

318

186 Angie: she wants to be with her mom - - 187 or F 188 she wants to be with Frank ((moves hand in a slashing motion)) [her mom] 189 Olivia: [her mom] 190 Robert: correct 191 Ravna: Frank is a symbolization of her mom so- 192 Olivia: it’s almost like she knows that too - 193 Ravna: it’s like she knows that Frank is her mom 194 like it’s kinda like portraying herself as her only love is her mom 195 all she wants is to be with her mom 196 so basically everyone is trying to trick her into being in love with this guy 197 no she’s in love with her mom 14 198 Angie: ((reading from phone)) “The sea denotes a collection of memory and knowledges that come from the water, springs, oceans, seas - they signify…” 199 Ravna: none of these sea creatures- 200 like they look similar 201 but there is 202 I can’t find the exact pictures 203 Angie: ((reading from phone)) “The sea denotes a collection of memory and knowledges” 204 ((finger quotes)) memories - memories 205 Ravna: memories 206 Angie: memories 207 Angie: memorie::::s 208 Robert: all right 209 Ravna: I love how we’re weird 210 but we’re productive at the same time @@ 211 Angie: we are late 15 212 ((The rest of the interview is Angie and Robert looking at video recordings and determining whether or not Robert transcribed her conversation with Mrs. Green and Mrs. Lewis correctly.))

319

i Per privacy ethics, any and all information that could be used to locate the school, teachers, and/or students, etc. is masked through pseudonyms. ii “Every child that is coming into being rests, like all life that is coming into being, in the womb of the great mother, the undivided primal world that precedes form….he must find for himself his own world by ii “Every child that is coming into being rests, like all life that is coming into being, in the womb of the great mother, the undivided primal world that precedes form….he must find for himself his own world by seeing and hearing and touching and shaping it. Creation reveals, in meeting, its essential nature as form. It does not spill itself into expectant senses, but rises up to meeting the grasping senses….in the flash and counter-flash of meeting. The primal nature of the effort to establish relation….hands sketch delicately and dimly in the empty air, apparently aimlessly seeking and reaching out to meet something indefinite. You may, if you wish, call this an animal action, but it is not thereby comprehended. For these very glances will after protracted attempts settle on the red carpet-pattern and not be moved till the soul of the red has opened itself to them….Little, disjointed, meaningless sounds still go out persistently into the void. But one day, unforeseen, they will have become conversation….In the beginning is relation—as category of being, readiness, grasping form, mould for the soul; it is the a priori of relation, the inborn Thou” (Buber, 1923/1958, p. 37-39). iii cf. Braunstein’s chapter 7 in Rabaté’s (2003) The Cambridge Companion to Lacan for a detailed discussion of jouissance and desire in Lacanian thought. iv Figures were processed through a drawing software in order that the images showed up on paper. v I use the emic term “wondering” as both teachers, in particular Mrs. Green, taught the reading comprehension strategy whereby students fold a notebook paper into two columns, titling the left side “I know” and the right “I wonder”. Moreover, Mrs. Green and Lewis used the term consistently throughout the year to highlight areas of confusion or intrigue.

320